DEVELOPLNG A MODEL POLICE COMPLAINT
PROCEDURE

Thesis fer the Degree of M. S.
MICHIGAN STATE U‘NEVERSHY
HERBERT K, WOLBERT
1987

 

 

  
      

Unim-m},

lfl1ll|lllflzl|flflllll Lflljflflljfllfll Elllizlfllfllflll ‘;

THESIS

 

 

 

DEVELOPIEG A NOBEL

POLICS JOhrnAINT PROCEDURE
By

Herbert K. Wolbert

AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

EASTER OF SCIENCE
School of Police Administration and Public Safety

1967

APPROVED :_ V C 'v1",;-L.c»-u‘:../ ‘1/ (flulv‘u/

Rawhd f. Galvin/ C Chairman)

 
 

 

mber)

    

 

(meber) //

ABSTRACT

DEVELOPING A MODEL

POLICE CChPLAINT PROCEDURE
By herbert K. Wolbert

The problem dealt with in this thesis is that of
developing a police complaint procedure. The wide variety
of procedures and written regulations pertaining to police
complaint procedures presently in effect point to a need
for additional work in this area.

The method employed in the development of the model
presented in the conclusion of the thesis is the individual
study of complaint procedures in other fields. A review
of the literature in these fields was combined with
interviews of individuals who are engaged in active work
in the field.

The fields studied are the labor management grievance
procedures, civil service complaint processes, the Operation
of the military inspector-general system, and, the ombudsman.
The labor management grievance system was selected since its
procedures are the result of continued negotiations in an

adversarial atmosphere, and, as a result, should represent

Herbert h. Nolbert

an acceptable compremise system rather than an extreme.
Civil service is of interest because of its obvious rela-
tionships with government interests and methods, and, the
relationship of police with government. The inSpector-
general is reviewed as a somewhat unique system within an
authoritarian structure similar to the quasi-military
Operations of the police. The amount of current interest
in the ombudsman concept led to the inclusion of this
method of complaint processing.

A pragmatic evaluation of these systems in the light

of the special needs of a police complaint procedure,

resulted in the model presented. lhe model obviously requires

further testing and evaluation, however, it is felt that
this presentation provides an important perspective for

such further analysis and evaluation.

DEVELOPING A MODEL

POLICE CCHrLAINT PROCJDURE

By

Herbert K. Wolbert

A THESIS

Submitted to
the College of Social Science
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of

MASTER CF SCIENCE

1967

‘\
.\

TABLE OF GLHTSNTS

ChArTmR

II.

III.

i113 PROBLEH . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . .
Importance of the Study . . . . .
Statement of the Problem . . . . .
methodology . . . . . . . . . . .

Limitations 0 o o o e o o o o o 0

Organization of the Remainder of ihesis

LABCR GRISVANCE AND COEPLAINT PROCEDURE

Objectives of grievance procedures

Definitions of complaint and grievance

General Motors/UAW-AFL—CIO Agreement .

Pros and cons of written procedures
Step by step analysis . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CIVIL SERVICE GRIEVANCE PRCCLDURE . .
Historical background . . . . . .

Standard features of procedures .

Army civil service grievance procedure

Role of labor union in civil service

Tennessee Valley Authority . . . .
Michigan grievance procedures . .

Slum-n9 fry 0 o o o o o o o o o o o 0

ii

PAGE

«FT-F‘wb-JH

\0 an «a -q 0‘ UR

\JJ W L» |-‘ H
K] \1 0 U1 |\)

 

I‘lllll'Il'lll’ill

I
s

I

.

o

x

s

I

e

I a

v v

, n

I O I

v a O

. I u. I
a e n Q

CHAPTER

IV. Tilt: Irzssscrca Gni—JERAL MID as clumsy-ma

Organization and functions of the
The military grievance system . .
Definition of the Ombudsman . . .

The Danish Ombudsman . . . . . .

I! IG”

Organization of the Ombudsman’s staff

The Ombudsman concept in the U. 3.
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .
V. A CCKPARATIVE STUDY . . . . . . . . .
Method of the comparison . . . .
Characteristics of the systems .
Deviations from procedures . . .
The complainant . . . . . . . . .

sunmary o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

VI. DmVELOPING A POLICE COMPLAINT PfiOCdDURE

The communications problem . . .

Objectives of police complaint procedure.

Definitions of complaints . . . .
A tentative system . . . . . . .
Functions of a Complaint Bureau .
A comparison of characteristics .
A model complaint system . . . .

BIBLIO(}RA&Ph’-Y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

iii

PAGE

101
102
10h
10br
107
110
Ill
1111,
118
l?3

129

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
I. INTRODUCTION

The growth of cities, mass transportation problems,
the population ”explosion", rapid deveIOpment of tech-
nology, the "war on poverty“, rising crime rates, and a
myriad of other symptoms of change in our societal envir-
onment, have indicated a need for continuing evaluation
of our institutional structures. Federal, state, and local
government have given formal, if indirect, recognition t)

"1 which pervades much of the

the "existential anxiety
contemporary scene. This growing concern over values
enabling a satisfying, fulfilling and meaningful life for
members of our society is exemplified by its emphasis on
direct contacts between government and the people.

The growth of health, welfare, and, educational
organizations in the federal government is but one indica-
tion of the increased need for promotion of individual
welfare and well-being. The greatly increased emphasis
on individual rights and freedoms by our courts presents
another aSpect of this situation. The increase in mass

1 James 3. Coleman, Abnormal Psychology and hodern
Life. (Chicago: Scott, Foresman & Co., lgbh) pp.lbO-l6l.

 

demonstrations in public places, in schools, at state
houses and city halls provides further illustration of
the need for improvement in communications between the
peOple and their government.

The implications of this social evolution (if not
revolution) for police activities are amply conveyed by
the publicity attached to the actions of law enforcement
agencies in countering mass demonstrations. The police
have been criticized copiously for their actions, not
only in quelling disturbances, but also for their role
in contributing to the causes of the disturbances. The
publicity attending the disturbances in Watts, Harlem,
Berkeley, Cleveland, Chicago and numerous other sites of
unrest give ample illustration of views held by the public
in general and news media in particular of police actions
in this area. Previously accepted police tactics and
investigative techniques have been subjected to criticism
by the highest court of the land. This criticism has been
attended by a degree of publicity which has made the names
of some of the defendants, eg Miranda, Escobedo, a part
and parcel of the vocabulary of most Americans.

The rapid growth and eXpansion of the civil rights
movement in the United States has assisted immeasurably
in creating a vastly improved understanding by Americans

of their individual rights in a free society. Organizations

such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People have dedicated a major share of their efforts to
establishing legal precedents and obtaining court rulings
which clearly stipulate the rights of the individual in

his relationship with government and governmental agencies.

II. IMPORTALCE CF THE STUDY

Against the background of increased awareness of the
rights of the individual in a free society, the police
have been frequently described as enemies of social justice
and individual liberty. Accusations of police brutality,
ethnic slurs, harrassment, and unlawful arrest have become
comparatively commonplace. Some internal investigations
by police departments have revealed police participating
in burglary rings, accepting bribes, practicing extortion,
and, Operating innumerable other illegal agencies and
organizations. The expected result has been an increase
in com laints against police organizations, law enforce-
ment agencies, and individual policemen.

Efforts by law enforcement agencies and local govern-
ment to meet and stem the tide of complaints by members of
the public have been varied and subjected to considerable
criticism, discussion, and, change. Attempts to provide

internal improvement in police agencies and the quality of

Li

service rendered by them have been undertaken by numerous
law enforcement groups and individual departments. The
need for self-improvement seems to have won considerable

support.

III. STATEEENT OF TfiE PROBLEM

The facet of the problem facing police administrators
which is explored in this thesis is that of providing a
suitable media for receiving complaints from the general
public, processing and investigating them, and, making an
appropriate diSposition. Closely allied to this problem
is the method employed for receiving complaints and griev-
ances from members of the law enforcement agency. The
purpose of this investigation is to provide a basis for
establishing a model grievance and complaint procedure
for law enforcement agencies. The concept of the procedure
envisioned is one which will permit use of the machinery
for disposition of both public and internal complaints in
such a manner so as to contribute to the improvement of
the agency and its personnel.

Methodology. The technique utilized in arriving at

 

the model described in the concluding chapter is an exam-
ination and comparison of the grievance and complaint

techniques utilized by organized labor in its negotiations

with management; grievance procedures in civil service systems;
the military inspector-general concept; and, the ombudsman. The
thesis is based on a review of the literature, personal inter-
view tevhniques, and, pragmatic evaluation and comparison of
the data.

The instrumentalities reviewed have the benefit of
considerable eXperience in the field of complaint diSposition.
The labor/management and civil service systems have been
subjected to continuous evaluation and change, and, represent
the result of continuing analysis, negotiation and adjustment.

The literature in these fields is more plentiful than
that pertaining to police review procedures, and, provides a
wealth of eXperience not yet documented in the police field.

An adjudication of WHO is right or wrong, rather than WHAT,
prevails in most of the departmental regulations screened
prior to this investigation. This process invariably requires
lengthy formalities, with accompanying loss of time, money
and effort to the participants. The need to search elsewhere
for a solution is therefore apparent.

Limitations. The construction of a model procedure is

 

only a beginning in the orocess of evolving a system which
will yield pragmatic results. Seemingly unasaailable logic
frequently falters in actual application. The model presented
herein is based on logical development of experience in other

fields ano must be subjected to additional testing and

analysis in establishing its validity, or lack of it.

IV. CRGANIAATION OF THE RflhAINDfiR OF THE TnMSIS

The remainder of the thesis consists of five chapters.

Chapter II is a study of the labor management griev-
ance process, and, the characteristics of that system.

Chapter III reviews the functioning of civil service
grievance processes at the federal, state, and, local levels.
A summary of its characteristics concludes the chapter.

Chapter IV presents a review of the military inSpector-
general, ano, the ombudsman, with emphasis on the similarities
and differences of these offices.

Chapter V com ares the systems reviewed in Chaoters II,
III, and IV. The principles underlying the operations of each
of the systems are presented in a brief taxonomy.

Chaoter VI developes and presents the conclusions of
the thesis in the form of a model police comnlaint procedure,

and, points to the need for further research.

 

 

[‘[ll‘tll'lll‘llllllllal‘ll

CHAPTER II
LABOR GRIEVANCE AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURE

"The grievance nrocedure,..., is a social invention
of the greatest immortance for our democratic society."1
The application of this invention to the practical problems
of labor-management relations requires considerable vari-
ation of procedural rules from organization to organizatflan.
A survey of the field nevertheless indicates a high degree
of uniformity in the conceptualization of the steps of
the grievance procedure in effect in the United States
labor organization, and, in its agreements with management
representatives.

Crane and Hoffman's discussion of the objectives of
grievance procedures2 provides a starting point for this
necessarily brief investigation of the area. These
objectives can be paraphrased into the following points:

1) to provide orderly methods for bringing
complaints and grievances to the surface,
2) to provide simple but authoritative routes
for diSposition of complaints and problems,
3) to fix definite methods for everyday administration

1 William F. Whyte in the Grievance Process, Proceed-
ings of a Conference March 23-2E, 1956, Labor and Indus-
trial Relations Center, Kellogg Center, Michigan State
University.

2 Bertram R. Crane and Roger M. Hoffman, Successful
Handlingiof Labor Grievances. (Hew York: Central Book 00.,

Inc 0 , 1936) pp. Z-je

h) to fix means for compliance with laws and
agreements,

S) to provide a tool for maintenance and devel-
Opment of safe and healthful working conditions,

6) to provide strength to the entire bargaining
unit,

7) to enhance the productiveness and effectiveness
of the employer, and,

8) to help establish basic rules for work, over
a period of time.

Questions of definition plague the investigator at

the onset. The grievance procedure is defined by the same
authors1 as "a carefully planned device, jointly used by
management and labor, to maintain the industrial peace....
It is an indication of the need for reducing employee
unrest." This definition appears somewhat idealistic in
its reference to joint use by management and labor. In the
few instances where management is afforded the use of the
grievance machinery established, its only point of access
is at the union-management level of meeting. The definitk>n
of grievances and complaints presents a question requiring
early settlement. Some authors attempt to distinguish
between a grievance and a complaint. The variances presented

are without exception artificially contrived and for

1 Crane and Hoffman, 99.01t. p.1.

purposes of this discussion the terms will be used inter-
changeably. The following definition of a grievance
illustrates the point of interchangeability and will be
used in the subsequent discussion: "A formal complaint...
over an employee's, union's or employer's allegation, that
a feature of either a collective bargaining contract,
company policy, or agreement has been violated."1

The steps normally associated with presentation of
grievances by workers follow patterns similar to those
included in the agreement between the General Motors
Corporation and the UAW-AFL-CIO of October 5, 196a.2
The initial step consists of notifying the shop steward
of the nature of the complaint. The Shop steward is an
employee who has been elected by his fellow workers to
represent them in their dealings with management. The
shop steward at General Motors Corporation plants is
replaced by a committeeman who usually represents two
hundred and fifty employees. Another peculiarity of the
General Motors agreement is that the employee is encour-
aged to take his complaint to the foreman first, then
notify the committeeman if the complaint is not satis-
factorily adjusted. If no satisfactory adjustment is made

1 Society for the Advancement of Management: Glossary

of Personnel Management and Industrial Relations Termg
(New York, 1959) p.18.

 

2 Agreement between General Rotors Corporation and the
UAW-AFL-CIO (Detroit: Allied Printers Trade CouncilT October 5,
196K, effective, November 10, 196h.

 

10

by the foreman, the complaint must then be put in writing”
presented to the committeeman, and then brought before a
Shop Committee meeting with local management. Failing
agreement at this level, the next step of the process
provides for presentation of the grievance to the Corp—
oration and International Union on appeal. The final
resort is to present the complaint to an impartial umpire
for decision. The process envisioned then is a four step
procedure, first, presentation of complaint to the fore-
man, second, presentation in writing to the Shep committee,
third, discussion between Cor.oration and International
Union representatives, and, fourth, presentation to an
impartial umpire (arbitrator). The number of steps used

in the process vary from place to place and appear to depend
primarily on the structure of the plant and its union. The
starting and ending points of the process are almost in-
variably the same - the complaint is presented initially
either to a shop steward or plant foreman by the complainant,
and subsequently processed through the hierarchy of plant-
union organizations until finally, if still unresolved, the
comglaint is submitted to an impartial arbitrator. Crane
and Hoffman take pains to point out that each succeeding
step in the grievance procedure is greater in terms of

authority than the preceding step.1

1 Crane and Hoffman, Qp.Cit. pp.h7-63.

11

There is wideSpread agreement that grievance procedures
should be as uncomplicated as possible. Authorities assert
that there should be a minimum of formality consistent with
providing a clearly outlined procedure.l Consistent with
this view is union insistence that complaints should be
resolved at the lowest level possible, 16 shop steward or
foreman, to achieve Optimum results.2 Ehe rationale for
this emphasis lies in the fact that at the foreman/steward
level there is none of the lack of understanding which is
inherent in conveying grievances by records alone (in
many agreements records alone provide the basis for action
beyond the initial step of the procedure). The general
theme is one of settling problems at the lowest level
possible on a "man to man" basis. The advantages of such
settlements in terms of time, money and effort are obvious.

The emphasis on uncomplicated settlements without
lack of understanding has caused considerable discussion
of the merits of putting complaints under the system into
writing as Opposed to handling them on an oral complaint
basis. A detailed discussion of this question is contained

in Crane and Hoffman's Successful handling of Labor Griev-

 

ances. The basis for arguments against written complaints

1 International Labour Conference, Examination of
Grievances and Communications within the Undertaking
Report VII Vol. 1-2 TGeneva,Switzerland: La Tribune de
Geneve) 1965. p.17.

 

2 Ken Bannon in The Grievance frocess, Co.Cit.pp,20-21,

12

may be briefly summarized in the following points;1

1) some people have difficulty in reducing
their views to writing,

2) oral grievance processing eXpedites hand-
ling and lessens possibility of delay,

3) in small organizations a written procedure
would serve no purpose since there is frequent contact
between personnel,

h) there is fear of future discrimination
where a signed writing is required,

5) not every comylaint justifies the use of
written procedures,

6) there is a greater possibility for con-
ciliation and willingness for settlement when complaints
are not in writing.

An equally compelling list of reasons sup.orting written
comglaints can also be extracted from this discussion:

1) written procedures tend to preclude unim-
portant or unfounded complaints,

2) such procedure reduces disagreements over
the facts in diSpute,'

3) they provide a written record for reference

and for use in establishing precedents,

1 Crane and Hoffman, Op Cit pp.65-69,

A—n.

13

h) possession of a record is valuable in future
negotiations,

5) written records save time at higher level of
multi-step procedures,

6) written records lessen possibility of con-
flicting decisions,

7) they decrease the possibility of decisions
by unauthorized personnel,

8) written documents confine disputants to the
record,

9) they assist in preventing private "off the
record” agreements by lower echelons of representation,
and,

10) there is a need for records for labor relations
purposes in larger organizations.

The usual method of presentation is a two-step affair
which has been alluded to earlier, ie the complaint is
made orally at the worker-foreman/steward level and put
into writing if there is no agreement at that level. The
subsequent writing is then referred to higher echelons
for resolution.

Procedures vary in the methcc of transmittal of the
writing and also in whether or not the writing is accompanied
by oral testimony at the higher echelons of the system.

Both union and management representatives have in several

11L

instances conveyed their strong feelings that written
records alone tend to reduce understanding of the basic
problems presented in a grievance. Union views in this
area have already been alluded to in the discussion of
employee-foreman/steward relations.l hr. mdward L. Cushman,
Labor Relations Representative of American Rotors, is
quite insistent in stating that the grievance procedure
"should and must go beyond (written grievance procedure)
to achieve a real understanding."2

Time is another factor which receives considerable
attention in the literature on labor relations, and, is
included in the majority of contracts cited by authors
in this field. Crane and Hoffman point out that "many
employees prefer a denial of a grievance to weeks of
waiting for a decision."3 Agreements are therefore usually
quite precise in stipulating specific periods of time
within which each step of the grievance procedure must
be accomplished. Common agreements stipulate one week or
less, thirty day periods are not infrequent, and, as much
as sixty days may be allowed by some ccntracts.h The local

1 Ken Bannon in the Grievance Process 0 .Cit.pp.20-21.

(Er. Bannon was Director of the Ford United Auto Workers
at the time of the conference.)

 

 

2 Edward L. Cushman in the Grievance Process,0p.CitpilB-19
3 Crane and Hoffman, Op.Cit.p.76.

u U.s. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
"Grievance Procedure in Union Agreements" in Monthly
Labor Review, July, 1951.

 

15

agreement between General motors Corporation and the UAW-
AFL-CIO stipulates a fifteen day maximum period wherein
local management must renly to written grievances. The

time period commences from the date of the written grievance.

Apocals to the Corporation representatives and International

Union directors must be resolved within thirty days from
presentation although frovisions for waiver of this time
period are provided for. No Specific time limitations are
placed on the functions of the umpire (arbitrator), although
a requirement that appeals to umpires must be submitted
within twenty-one days of the completion of appeal action

is cited in the contract. Failure to request action by

an umpire within the twenty-one day limitation is construed
as an indication that the previous action is final.

A general frame-work of the grievance procedure in
labor management relations has been drawn in the preceding
text. The remainder of the chapter will be devoted to a
more detailed study of the individual steps of the griev-
ance procedure, and, the personnel an agencies involved

at each level of the process.
INITIATING PROCESS

The first step of the process is by far the simplest
and most straightforward. It consists of a person to oerson

contact between the aggrieved employee and the foreman or

16

Shop steward. The variant is introduced by the level of
representation of the union in the shop. In shops where

a ShOp steward is designated by employees to act on their
behalf with a foreman, the initial point of contact is in
the rendering of a verbal complaint to the shOp steward

by the employee. The shoe steward in turn makes an oral
representation to the foreman regarding the grievance

whirh has been reoorted to him, and, solicits apprOpriate
action by the foreman. Where no shop steward is designated,
the employee simply takes his com laint directly to the
foreman and requests correction of the grievance. The follow-
ing possibilities stem from this initial presentation:

1) the foreman (or steward) may make a finding
that the employee's complaint is unfounded and take no
further action, or,

2) the foreman (or shop steward) may recognize
the complaint as valid and take corrective action (if such
action is within the scope of his authority).

If agreement on the corrective action is reached, or the
finding that the comnlaint is unfounded is acceatable to
the employee, no need for further action exists, and in
most cases no further action is taken. There may foreseeably

be circumstances under which a foreman may be required by

plant management to make a written record and report of

the complaint and the action taken, although these would

17

seem to be comparatively infrequent.

Lacking such agreement on either the corrective action
or the finding of unfounded complaint, or, if the foreman
lacks the authority to take necessary action, the grievance
is then prepared for submission to the next higher echelon
of union-management reoresentation. This preparation norm-
ally consists of reduction of the grievance to writing in
sufficient c0pies to provide both management and union
channels with basic information on which to proceed. The
entire process to this point has been conducted orally
and it is quite obvious that solutions to grievances
arrived at in this manner can normally be eXpeditiously
and economically achieved. The key individual to arriving
at an adequate solution at this level of procedure is
obviously the foreman.

The selection and training of foremen by management
can therefore be visualized as an imiortant factor in the
successful handling of grievances at this level, and, in
the reduction of the numbers of grievances presented to
higher echelons for decisions. Considerable emahasis is
placed on the training, selection and authority of fore-
men in various texts dealing with grievance procedures.

An illustration of the types of criteria utilized

by some large firms in selecting foremen is well conveyed

18

by the examnle of the Owens-Illinois Glass Company of
Toledo, Ohio. The following saecifications are used in
the initial selection process:

1) candidate must have at least five years of
department service,

2) must be married,

3) not over 35 years of age,

A) have completed military obligation,

S) at least a high school graduate,

6) must be a former union or club officer, and,

7) must achieve acceptable scores on adaptability
and personality tests.
Subsequent to selection, the candidate is given extended
training in the operations of the department in which.he
is best qualified.

Crane and Hoffman1 spend considerable effort in their
text in outlining the preper delegation of authority and
reSponsibility to the foreman by the company. Authority is
cited as one of the basic requirements for creating the
ability to take positive corrective action, and, the authors
recommend the following powers, based on their analysis of
business practices:

1) authority to hire - the rationale presented

here is that a foreman will be more likely to persist in

1 Crane and Hoffman, Op.Cit. po.;:01—205.

l9

efforts to train personnel of his own selection. This
personal attention to the employee is viewed as a factor
in reducing grievance cases among new employees. It should
be noted that exceptions are called for when the “ersonnel
manager has established snecific techniques for hiring
gersonnel of specific qualifications, and, where unskilled
labor is hired "on sight".

2) power to recommend discharge - this power
should not be construed to indicate a "carte blanche" but
rather the authority to build up a sufficient case against
an employee to allow discharge without opposition by union
representation, eg by giving warnings to employees in the
presence of union representatives, etc.

3) authority to seek assistance - the practice
of seeking, and, having a right to eXpect assistance from
personnel staff members as well as other approariate
representatives of management in maintaining harmonious
relations with employees.

A) authority to take certain personnel actions;

a) approve short temporary absences on
employee request,
b) assignment of employees to work projects,
c) arrange distribution of work load,
d) arrange maintenance of equipment and supplies,

e) determine the quality of work performed.

5) right to make recommendations - foremen
should have the right and reSponsibility for making rec-
omendations regarding need for additional help, changes
in wage rates, promotions, suspensions, inter-departmental
transfers, and, changes in production methods.

6) authority to change his own decisions - the
prestige and acknowledgement of fallibility on the part
of the foreman should strengthen relations with employees.

Considerable emphasis is placed on the qualifications
for union representatives in other texts reviewed during
this investigation. The Report of the International Labour
Conference on the Examination of Grievances and Communications

within the Undertaking; discusses this area in some detail.

 

The areas of eXpertise mentioned correSpond to a consider-
able degree with those cited for the foreman in the preceding

discussion.
INIEIATION OF EORKAL ACTION

A model grievance procedure cited in the Report of the
International Labour Conference2 presents a two step proced-
ure for the second step in grievance processing. In essence

this model calls for an oral presentation of the grievance

1 02.0112. Part I.

2

Lochit,

21

to the department head (local management in the case of
the General Rotors Agreement with the UAW-AFL-CIO) by the
aggrieved employee. “he department head must reply within
three days, and, if the reply is unsatisfactory, the
grievance must then be put into writing and submitted to
local management and its grievance committee. Few agree-
ments in the United States provide for oral presentation
to management by the employee. Typically the complaint is
reduced to writing immediately after failure of correctiai
(or satisfaction) at step one, and submitted to local
management and its grievance machinery.

The parties to this step of the grievance machinery
are normally selected members of the union, eg "Shop
Committee", and designated representatives of local manage-
ment. A typical structure is the Shep Committee/Management
arrangement at Lansing plants of the General Motors Corp-
oration.l The Shop Committee consists of four elected
committeemen. These representatives are elected by the
employees in biennial elections. Two adCitional committee-
men are selected from the elected district committeemen
available in the plant. This selection is made by the
elected Shop Committee. An adtitional district committee-
man is selected to participate in the committee meetings

1 Mr. Richard Sandborn, President of Local 602 UAW-

CIO-AFL, in interview conducted 30 March 1967. (Local 602
represents employees of the Lansing Fisher Body Plant.)

22

on a two week rotating basis, primarily to provide train-
ing for future permanent members. The full ShOp Committee
therefore consists of a total of seven members, four
elected, two selected for long term tenures (approximately
two years, correSponding to terms of elected members), and

a rotating member. A chairman is elected by the four elected
members from among their number. The chairman serves as the
principle spokesman for the committee in its meetings with
management. Management is represented by the plant Director
of Labor Relations, a selected member of the plant Labor
Relations staff (in adcition to the director), and a
secretary of the Labor Relations department, who maintains
minutes of the meetings. A foreman in training frequently
accompanies the management representatives, and, is present
primarily for training in labor relations and the Operations
of the grievance system.

Meetings between the Shep Committee and management
representation are conducted on a scheduled weekly basis,
with the Shop Committe providing in advance an agenda for
items to be discussed. The meetings are conducted informally,
with the chairman of the Shop Committee presiding over the
general proceedings. Management representatives are required
to furnish written replies to grievances presented and
discussed at the meetings within fifteen days of the date

of the written grievance. This normally allows a week for

23

reply after the weekly meeting. A decision resulting from
this process is considered settled and not subject to
further appeal unless such appeal is made within five
working days of such decision.

Information and evidence regarding the grievances to
be considered at the weekly meetings are gathered by both
management and labor representatives, based on copies of
the written complaint which was furnished by the aggrieved
employee through both labor and management channels. Mutual
interpretations of agreements between labor and management,
precedents of orevious grievance hearings, and the current
working contract provide basic information on which
grievances are based and subsequent determination is made.

A particularly interesting feature of the structure
and its Operations is the importance placed by both labor
and management on the training of personnel in grievance
procedures. In the interview previously cited, Er. Sandborn
indicated that tenures of office for Shop Committeemen and
foremen were usually quite long (he cited one example of
a Shoo Committeeman who had been re—elected to his office
over a seen of twenty-five years). This factor was considered
of crime importance in providing adequate training in an
"on the job" status fer rotating committeemen who would
usually have correSpondingly long tenures in their positibns,

thereby enabling repeated attendance at grievance meetings

21;

over the years. Similar exuerience factors were cited for
plant foremen participating in the hearings.

This second step of the grievance procedures provides
the largest number of personnel participating in formal
hearings on a regular basis. Cf the total of eleven
persons in attendance (seven union committeemen and four
management representatives), the primary roles are played
by the Shoo Committee Chairman and the Director of Labor
Relations. Ihese heads of the labor-management teams
conduct the primary discussions with comments and assistance
from the other participating members being furnished as
required by the nature 01 the business at hand. The fore-
man in training and the rotating shop committeeman do not
usually participate actively as befits their ”in training"
status. It is felt that the presence of a comparatively
large number of representatives at the hearings provides
added insurance that all facets of the problem will be
aired. In the event that a suitable agreement is not reached
as a result of this proceeding, an appeal will bring the
grievance before the next higher echelon of the grievance
procedure.

TOP LaVsL RsVIsw 1,:

The Chairman of the ShOp Committee will furnish the

1 Agreement between General Rotors and UAW-AFh-CIO,£Op:Cit.

2 Previously cited interview with Kr. R. Sandborn.

25

plant management with a cepy of a written "Notice of
Unadjusted Grievance” on forms supplied by the management.
Both management and labor will then prepare complete
“Statement(s) of Unadjusted Grievance" setting forth all
facts and circumstances surrounding the grievance. Cepies
of the statements by labor and management are exchanged
and forwarded through their reSpective channels to the
next higher echelon of their structures. Statements must
be completed within five days of the "Notice of Unadjusted
Grievance", although urovisions for extending this period
by mutual agreement are made.

A Regional Director of the International Union then
reviews the case submitted to determine whether or not a
grievance actually exists, whether such grievance should
be appealed, and, the manner of nresentation of the appeal.
Visits to the plant are made by this director or his
representative after prior request for permission to make
such a visit has been granted by management. Provisions
are included to permit private interview of emeloyees on
this visit. Such interviews are limited to the aggrieved
employee and such other employees as may have information
regarding the grievance. In the event of any further
diSpute between labor and management in this process, the
outcome is decided (by written agreement) by an umpire.

(Detailed discussion of the umsire and his functions is

contained in the review of the fourth step of the griev-
ance nrocedure.)

If the Regional Director decides that a case should
be appealed, he then gives notice of ap eal to management.
Suzh notice must be given within thirty days of the exchange

', or a mutually

of "Statement(s) of Unadjusted drievance'
agreed uron extended date. The case will then be considered
by a four man board consisting of the Regional Director
of the union (or his representative), the Chairman of the
Shop Committee of the plant where tne grievance arose, the
Director of Industrial Relations for the Corporation, and,
the Director of Labor Relations for the plant where the
grievance was initiated. frovisions are included for
eXpanding the structure to include additional members but
numbers of representatives of labor and management must
remain equal.

heetings of the committee for appeals are normally
conducted every two weeks for each bargaining unit serviced,
and, are normally conducted at the various plants where
appeals originate. frovisions are made to reimburse personnel
appearing at apaeals committee hearings at the same rate
as of their normal employment.

flhe primary activities of the Appeals Committee are
conducted by the Regional Director of the Union and the

Director of Industrial Relations of the Corporation. Ehe

Shop Committeeman and plant Director of Labor Relations

serve primarily by SUpolementing the written data which
has been presented to the committee with their own
observations and interpretations. Ninutes of the meeting
conducted between the Shop Committee and management, cooies
of the original grievance, Statements of Unadjusted Griev-
ance, recurds of interviews conducted, and, the current
contract and agreement sti ulations provide the basis for
action by the Appeals Committee. In the event an adjust-
ment is not made to the mutual satisfaction of the partic-
ieants at this level, the matter is referred to an umwire.
flanagement is required to furnish a cepy of its decision
to the union within five days of the termination of the
Appeals Committee meeting (cepies of minutes of the
meeting are also provided at this time). These documents
are then added to the material used by the Aspeals Committee
and furnished to the umfiire at the next level of proceedings.
It should be noted that the participants of the Appeals
Committee proceedings are full-time labor specialists who
may be exeeeted to bring with them the benefit of consid—
erable eXperience and training in the field, as well as
haVing available to them a wide variety of resources, data,
and, personnel, for use in reaching mutually acceptable
decisions. The membership includes persons who are at the

pea“ of the respective echelons of both labor and management.

ARBITRATION

Cn com leting the preceding step, the ability of
labor and management to reach mutually acceptable decisions
in the grievance procedure is considered as having been
exhausted. The next step therefore consists of submission
of the diSpute to an "outsider”, the umpire. Of the
numerous exeressions of opinion rendered regarding this
procedure, one selected from a work-shop conducted at
Kichigan State University seems to adequately describe
the consensus: ”there will be a better result for both
parties if they can be 'big enough' to resolve their own
problems without resorting to outsiders.”1 The selection
of these outsiders hinges on mutual agreement on a nominee
by local management and union representatives. In the
local case under consideration (General Motors and UAW-
AFL—CIO), nominations may be made by either labor or
management and are subject to approval by both prior to
confirmation. Salaries of the umnire selected are Split
evenly for payment by management and labor. Nominees may
ap arently come free any walk of life, but in this area
are usually attorneys or “college professors". Some
effort is made to nominate personnel who have had specific
training in the labor field, and, the usual result is to

obtain the services of a svecialist in the field.

1 The Grievance Process, Cp.Cit.pp.53-SS.

frocedures for bringing an appeal before an umpire
parallel in many respects the methods employed in the
appeal to the Appeals Committee. Cases must be appealed
within twenty-one days of the date of decision by the
Appeals Committee. Either party may appeal and "Notice
of Appeal” must be submitted to the other party as well
as the umpire within the twenty-one day time limit
established by the agreement. Provisions exist for a re-
investigation of the grievance after the case has been
appealed, but, prior to the umpire hearing the case.
Conditions for this investigation are identical to those
cited in the preceding step of the process. Both carties
are required to submit briefs to the umpire within twenty-
one days of the date of receipt of the ”Notice to Appeal”.

Ihe powers of the umoire are spelled out quite
specifically within the basic agreement and stipulate the
subjects regarding which the umpire is emgowered to rule.
Procedure itself is one of the subjects on which the
umpire is entitled to maKe a decision. A further stipulation
provides that any case apaealed to an umpire, in which he
is not entitled to rule, will be returned without action.

t is further agreed that all decisions by the umpire will

b final, and, that the union will actively discourage

G)

actions by its members to take the action to court or

before a labor board, once a decision has been handed down

30

by the umpire. Ime union agreement further states that
the union will not be liable to any claim that it has
failed to act relative to a prosecution, presentation,
or, settlement, of any claim by an employee or former
employee. The termination of this final step of the
grievance process, therefore, does not comnletely bar
but does effectively limit the possibility of future
litigation or claims in regard to the grievance cited.
[he umpire is therefore placed in a situation very much
akin to that of the ombudsman (discussed along with the
inepector general in a subsequent chapter), in that his
powers to act are conferred by diSputants, and, that he
has no primcry affiliation with any of the disgutants,
and, that to a large degree, the success of his mediation
deoends on the voluntary cooperation of the diSputants.
he is awarded liberal powers of investigation and access
to personnel, records, and, facilities, on which to base

his independent judgment.
SUREARY

It seems advisable at this point to extract the salient
features of the labor-management grievance procedure from
the detailed presentation for use in further comiarisons

with techniques described in succeeding chapters.

31

l) A written procedure outline dictates the

 

procedures for aggrieved workers presentation of ccmolaints

through established channels. Specific directions of this

Cf
‘4
Eb
m
"S
I}

desireable and indeed nevessary for efficient
presentation and nrocessing of complaints.

2) A multi-level approach is in general use, there-
by creating sources of appeals action and obtaining adequate
authority for action to remedy the grievance. Numbers of
levels in the procedure vary, and, normally correSpond to
the levels of authority in existence at the plant or industry
u ich are in turn usually duplicatec by union channels. It
is axiomatic that authority of each successive echelon
increases throughout the process.

3) Settlement at the lowest possible level is

 

emohasized, “rimarily to eliminate possibilities of misund-
erstanding generated by proceedings at higher, more removed
levels of authority. Where feasible an oral comfilaint tech-
nique comprises the first stew of the grievance procedure.
There appears to be considerable merit in the idea of
settling at this level for reasons of economy in time,
money ant effort.

h) Formal procedures are initiated at the lowest

working level possible. fhe obvious difficulty inherent in

 

this technique is the lack of labor relations (and human

relations) training and eXperience available to the
participants at this level. ShOp stewards and foremen

ave primary duties other than labor relations ant usually
have little or no actual excerienre. Various efforts are
being made by both labor and management to crevide
t’aining for these personnel in labor relations via
formal and ”on the job“ training techniques.

5) Both parties have the right to appeal. As in

 

most other forms of adjudication, the right to appeal, or
rather the use of this right, ampears somewhat one-sided.
Management seems considerably less likely to make an anneal
since decisions are erimarily made by management represent-
atives. The right for such appeal is nevertheless clearly
recognized and stiaulated in agreements and contracts.

6) Final anpeal is to a disinterested party, “he

 

theory of using umnires and arbitrators rests hrimarily on
the im artiality of these "judges". No specific criteria
for qualifications of the umpire were found in agreements
examined, however, these requirements would appear to be
well served by the stimulation that the umpire must be
acceptable to both parties. Apcointments to this eesition
are based on a one year tenure of office. Suvh frequent
changes of umoire personnel would seem to be helpful in

reducing a tendency to establish bias over longer periods.

33

7) Records of meetings and investigations are

 

maintained and furnished to both parties to the diseute.

 

Emphasis appears to rest on informal erocedures with
adequate recording of data to sustain further appellant
action where necessary, provide data for establishing
erecedent, and, provide guidance for determining future
actions. Minutes of meetings are normally kept in a
summary fashion with "position papers” submitted by both
parties furnishing specifics of the case.

8) Emphasis is placed on avoiding litigation.
Ko substantial bar to such action is included in the
grievance agreements however. [he aggrieved employee is
effectively barred by his agreement with the union from
litigating against the union for failure to present,
prosecute or otherwise act on his complaint.

9 Time limits for completion of each step of

 

the process are included in virtually all agreements
regarding grievance preceoures. Such stipulations serve
to bring about timely decisions, preclude loss of evidence,
and, reduce errors and faulty recollections.

The overall view of eXperts in the field of labor
relations appears to be that there is no such thing as a

1

"perfect legal agreement", and that broad definitions are

l crane and hoffman, On.3it. p.9.

necessary since ”the relationship of the adversary and
cooperative aspects of this relationship are no more
definable in its contingencies than the contingencies of the
marital relationship."l Flexibility appears to be a keynote
in the compilation of labor—management agreements. Those
reviewed are replete with orovisions for adjustments via
mutual agreements between management and labor represent-
atives at all levels of the multi-step procedure. Ehe very
informality of the proceedings tends to contribute to this
flexibility.

In utilizing this compilation of information on the
labor management grievance procedure as a basis for deveIOp-
ing a complaint process for police, several inherent factors
{must be kept in mind:

1) Both parties to the labor management grievance
process have organization with equally well training
.personnel specializing in the field of labor relations.

2) Hazards to the aggrieved individual are reduced
'by contractual agreements which orovide for his remuneratk>n
for time lost from work while participating in the griev-
ance orocedure; his job tenure may not be affected by his

complaint; and, he is provided with adequate assistance in

prosecuting his comrlaint.

1 Isidore hatz, “minimizing Disputes through Adjustment
of Grievances", in Law and Contemporary Problems. Duke
'Uhiversity Law School. (Durham, H.S.: Duke University Press,
191;? )

35

3) Grievances are normally based on allegations
of violation of written agreements and contracts. Fhe
content of these agreements is well known to both parties
to the dispute, and, com laints are normally questions of
interpretation of the writings.

h) Ehe specific channels and methods for present-
ing complaints are well known to both parties, constituting
an integral portion of their daily relationships. Cosies
of pertinent agreements outlining grievance procedures
are furnished to individual union members at the time of
initiation into the union. Discussions of working conditions
and contract apqlicability are conducted at union meetings
which the member is required to attend (the usual rules
require members to pay fines for meetings missed - some
stipulate that a member may not miss two meetings in a row).

5) The action sought by union members in entering
a grievance is not normally punitive in nature. The ulti-
mate aim of the adversary relationship in labor and manage-
ment grievance processes is to restore the desired degree
of cooperation which both require for fulfillment of
their purposes. Basic emphasis is on WHAT is wrong, not
WHO is wrong.

6) The grievance process in industry (labor

relations) usually takes place in an informal setting

 

III ’ I'll illl‘lllln f ‘ul'. Illlll‘l

36

among persons who are known to one another, and who have
mutual interests. There is little of the cold formality
of a meeting among strangers, and, probably little loss
of understanding as a result of this factor.

Despite these obvious differences in circumstances
surrounding labor-management and police-public relations,
there remain several valid areas for comparison and assim-
ilation of ideas. These will be discussed in the final
chaoters in the effort to combine the features of the

several grievance and complaint processes discussed.

CHAPTER III
CIVIL SERVI E GHIdVAHCn PfiCCMbURbS

"flhe goal in providing any sound plan (for
grievance procedures) is a satisfied and contented
corps of public servants, the attraction and reten-
tion of competent personnel, and, the uninterrupted
service to the people." 1

Civil service has had a lengthy and sometimes infamous
history of develooment in the United States. Its history
is of only trifling concern to this investigation. Suffice
it to say that the days of the "spoils system", inefficient
public service, graft, nepotism, and, favoritism, have brought
about a series of concerted drives to remedy these faults.
The Operation of a grievance system is virtually indiSpens-
able to such efforts, and, it can be assumed that the current
status of civil service grievance machinery has reached a
reasonable degree of Specificity and sephistication. A
fragmentary analysis of state and federal civil service
grievance machinery will serve to introduce a more detailed
account.

An element which has considerable bearing on the
question of grievance processing under civil service is
simply that personnel administration in government is dic-
tated by rules and regulations such as those ssued by the

1 Second Report of the Committee on Labor Relations

of Government Employees. American ear Association, June 27,

1955. p.1.

 

38

United States Civil Service Commission. Unlike the agree-
ments between labor and management (cited in the preceding
chapter), these rules are promulgated as a result of the
initiatives of government, the employer, without Specific
direct reference to the employee or his representatives.
Despite the statutory authority vested in the civil Service
Commission by various acts of Congress1 considerable
latitude for employee management relations exists. Ehis
latitude is primarily the result of comparatively recent
decisions regarding the right of government employees to
participate in ”employee organizations or associations”.2
Dnis permissiveness regarding organization membership,
without specific regulation other than the prohibition
against joining groups which might obligate members to
strike against the government, and, against joining sub—
versive organizations, has left considerable leeway with
the federal agency in handling employee relations. ihe
agencies have nevertheless maintained basically uniform
procedures in this area.

The grievance procedure is one of the areas which
has retained conventional approaches. Wilson nart3 lists

those features which are standardized to a great extent

1 Wilson R. hart, Collective Bargaining_in the Federal
Civil Service (New York: harper and dros., 1961) pp.73-7u.

 

 

2 Federal Personnel Panual, Chapter E2(10) 1950. (Wad1.,
D.C. Federal Printing Service, 1950)

3 Wilson R. Hart, 09.01t. p .80—81.

as follows:

1) Policy that grievances should be settled at
the lowest possible level,

2) Provision for multi-level stages of grievance
processing up to the head of a deoartment or agency,

3) The aggrieved employee must be afforded the
opportunity to be heard by a committee of his fellow
employees. In the armed services military officers may
also serve on grievance committees.

u) Actual decisions are rendered by line
management officials at each step of the process. Recom-
mendations of grievance committees are purely advisory
and not binding on the head of the installation or agency.

5) employees presenting a grievance may be
represented by counsel.

6) Decisions at advanced stages of the grievance
process are based on the written record exclusively. This
record normally contains a transcript of the grievance
hearing.

Practices under Army Civilian fersonnel Regulations
contain grievance provisions which correSpond generally
to the conventional approaches cited by hart.l Ehe initial

1 The descriction of the Army Civilian Personnel
Procedure is ased nrimarily on the author's versonal
exceriences as a military sloervisor of civilian personnel
in several command areas, as well as eXperience as a

member of Civil service grievance boards, while on active
military service status.

 

I‘ll-Ill..." I'llllll I ’ III-(Ill (lllulllln\-nA

#0

point of contact for the aggrieved employee is with his
imnediate sucervisor. Policy letters and directives pro-
mulgated by various Army commands encourage close liaison
between military supervisors and their civilian employees.
Work conditions are clearly defined in such media as job
descriptions, work classification texts, pay and promotion
scales, job rating scales, examination and general qualifi-
cation scales, man~power guide manuals, and, are normally
reviewed at specified periods by members of the Civilian
Personnel Office servicing the command. Situations vary,
however, the Civilian Personnel Cfficer is normally a

civil service rated employee, specializing in versonnel
administration. The size and composition of this officers
staff are dictated by considerations of size of the command,
number of civilian employees, and the relationship of the
command to higher echelons in the personnel administration
field (data processing centers commonly ooerate from highly
centralized facilities and service a number of separate,
though not necessarily subordinate, personnel offices).

Ihe immediate sucervisor is usually limited quite severely
by published regulations in his relationship with the sub-
ordinates of his department. The subordinates are usually
aware of the regulatory restrivtions placed on the suwervisor,
and consequently, the superior-subordinate grievance proced-

ure most frequently consists of a joint examination and

hl

interpretation of established rules and regulations
pertinent to the com laint. If the interpretation of
these regulations is satisfactory to the employee, no
further action is taken and the matter is considered
closed by the oral exercise described. Failing agreement,
two avenues for reaching a solution are available. [he
an ervisor may obtain acditional information and inter-
pretation of the rules from the next higher level of
command (usually in writing) for further transmission
(orally) to the employee. The employee may similarly
request additional information and interpretation from
the Civilian Personnel office where his employment in
the position was initiated and where his personnel records
are maintained. either of these two procedures may (and
very often do) result in resolving the complaint.
Lacking satisfaction of the complaint at the level
Cescribed above, the employee has available to him
procedures for obtaining a hearing by a grievance board.
These procedures entail the completion and forwarding
through channels directed of a form (furnished by the
Civilian fersonnel Office of the command) outlining the
nature of the comtlsint, and identifying witnesses and
such other information as the employee may feel have a

bearing on his grievance. A determination as to whether a

t2

grievance actually exists is made by the Civilian Personnel
Officer based on the applicable regulations and policies

of the command. A grievance board is appointed in writing
to hear the complaint, if the grievance is determined to

be valid. (There is usually very little dossibility of an
adverse finding since regulations and nirectiVes have
already been screened in the procedures at the supervisor-
employee level.) {he grievance board mist by regulation
have a majority of civilians, although military nersonnel
may and often do sit on grievance board hearings. The board
normally consists of three persons; a representative of

the Livilian Personnel Officer (civilian), and two other
disinterested persons, one of which may be a military person.
The representative of the Civilian Personnel Officer brings
to the board meeting conies of statements furnished and the
complaint itself, arranges for the presence of witnesses,
the complainant, and, members of the board. The aggrieved
employee is entitled to counsel at the hearing, but, this
right has been waived in each of the boards within the author's
experience. Ihe right to counsel envisioned refers to
selection by the employee of another civilian or military
person in the establishment to act as his counsel (these
persons will be provided if "reasonably available") as well

as retention of an attorney by the employee at his own eXpensc

if he so desires.

 

I lV‘ l I I l. ‘Il

 

II It li‘lllll‘lljljl || .|

LLB

The disinterested members of the board are not
apprised of the evidence or detailed information pertain-
ing to the case to be heard until the board actually meets.
In this sense they corressond to jurors in a formal court
case, except that they normally particioate extensively
in the examination of witnesses, evidence, and the like,
prior to reaching a "verdict”. The result of the grievance

hearing is a recommendation by the board, based on its

 

findings, to the sporOpriate commander. This commander
is normally represented by the Civilian Personnel Officer
in this process, and this individual will make the decisiai
as to whether the findings and recommendations of the board
should be accepted and arrive at a conclusion. Where the
recommendations include actions relating to military
personnel of the establishment, the Civilian Personnel
Cfficer will enter into consultation with the military
commander of the department prior to implementing his
decision "For the Commander“.1

Successive steps of appeal are available to the
em loyee by forwarding a request for reconsideration of
the grievance by successive higher echelons of the military
command. These may ultimately result in a hearing by a
Civil Service Commission Labor Board. In each step the
process basically repeats the initial proceedings, except
that a board is not necessarily convened at each succeeding

1 “he CPO acts on the authority of the commander.

LL;

level. Individual investigators may be appointed to make
supplementary reCOmmendations and adcuce additional
evidence, but, the actual decision is made by the apprOp-
riate command representative who is not bounc by these
recommendations. As a matter of general practice, the
recommendations are almost invariably ac epted and acted
upon accordingly.

It is readily apparent that the Army procedures
outlines in the preceding discussion contain every facet
of the conventional approach cited by hart. The military
structure of civil service employment has peculiarities
not generally found in the purely civilian organization.

There exists a degree of continuous distinction between

0.7

the military and civilian role, even in situations where
military and civilian personnel perform the same jobs, side
by side. Presumably the fact of living under separate
regulations, "enjoying” separate working conditions, and,
social status differences (real or imagined) are responsible
for generating a variable degree of clannishness in the

two groups. On occasion an almost adversary-like atmosphere
exists between the military and civilian members which has
obvious implications for the nature and frequency of

grievance presentations. The degree of regulation present

for both parties no doubt generates considerable

 

l I III II" {In'li‘ lab. I {ll ‘11:. i N

£5

frustration and anxieties, which bring about this phenom-
enon.

The organization of federal, state, and, municipal
government employees by such unions as the American Fed-
eration of Government employees (AFGs)l, and the American
Feceration of State, County, and Lunicipal Luplcyces (AFBCKB),
have some spearent impli ations for the Operation of griev-
ance procedures for government emiloyces. As of 1961, the
A”SCLE claims 29; collective bargaining agreements with
agencies of government. One hundred of these agreements
;rovide for arbitration of grievances of members by the
union.2

The Tennessee Va ley Administration has been cited as
an example of collective bargaining in public services, and
the AFSCLS reputedly points to lhiledelphia as an ideal
establishment for collective baragining under union auspices.3
Philadelphia was the first maior city to recognize one union
as the collective bargaining agent for all non-uniformed
workers. The agreementu recogniyes the union as the sole
bargaining agent for all em loyecs except professional
employees and supervisors above the level of foreman, and,

1 A national union affiliated with the AFL-CIO.

2 Wilson R. hart, Op.Cit. p.135.

3 ”Unions Eye hunicipal Employees" Business Week,
karch a1, 1959. op.llS-l£2.

 

.' (1

4 Text of Agreements in Cornell, collective Bargaining
by Public Employee GTOHDS" U. of fenna Law Review h3,0p.S9-63,

he

uniformed employees of the City. Employees retain the
right to present and adjust their own grievances if they
prefer, using the established machinery of the city. Union
representation may be obtained for presentation of the
grievance. The final stage of the city's grievance
machinery was adjusted to establish an advisory board
consisting of three members appointed by the city personnel
director and three ap ointee by the union. In the event
that this board cannot reach agreement by mediating between
the city terscnnel director and the union, the board is
emsowered to elect a chairman (seventh member of the board)
acceatable to both sides, to enable a majority decision.
The findings of the board are advisory in nature and
the city is not bound by the decision of the board.

It can be seen that in many res ects the union
representation does not radically change the procedures
for adjusting grievances, nor has the point of final
decision (the city) been changed. The system described
parallels the Army procedure in that the board decision
is not binding on the manager, but rather advisory in
nature. The agreement further stimulates that there shall
be no strikes, lo k-outs, or, work—stOpcages. The need
for persuasion and mutual agreement in reaching solutions
to diSputes between unions and city management is inherent

in the system. Such agreement has .paarently been reached

1;?

since Kr. Eli Rock (then Labor Relations Consultant for
the City of Philadelphia) Cites the presentation of a
”united front" by the executive branch and the union in
presenting a budget for financing agreed progrsms to the
legislature and subsequently to the Civil Service
Commission.1

The Bennessee Valley Authority deviates from the
conventional in its grievance grocedures.2 The TVA was
initially established by Congress in suzh a manner as to
render it quite similar to a privste industry in its
Operations. The TVA has authority to determine its own
pay schedules for both hourly rate and salaried personnel
(usually at a ”local orevailing rate" scale). Provisions
exist for arbitration of wage-rate disoutes by the
Secretary of Labor, however, resort to the Secretary has
been infrequent since both sides prefer collective
bargaining to the use of an outside agency.

There is no provision for a grievance board or
committee to ccnduct formal hearings of grievances within
TVA. Eor is there provision for spreal to the general
manager or board of directors, or review, approval,
or veto by the head of the agency of an arbitrator's
decisions. In these respects TVA ciffers considerably

from the conventional approaches normally utilized by

1 s11 Hock, “Practical Labor Relations in the Public
Service", 18 Public Personnel Review 71, 1957. p.75,

2 Wilson R. hart Qp.Cit. pp.96-106.

government agencies.

Nost of TVA's blue collar employees are members of
one of the AFL-CIO craft unions which are members of the
Trades and Labor Council. "is director of personnel for

TVA is the authorized agent for EVA in bargaining with

{Q

unions end is also the agent for arriving at management
decisions in grievance cases.

TVA's grievance procedure provides that an employee
may file a grievance personally, or, through the authorized
representative of the union. If a grievance is presented
personally by the employee to the director of personnel,
the decision of the director is final. If the grievance
is presented through the union, the director of versonnel
and the union redresentative jointly seek a hutuslly
satisfactory decision. If such a decision is not reached,
the director of personnel preosres a written decision on
behalf of management, which may be subjected to impartial
arbitration at union request. The pay and eXpenses of
the arbitrator are jointly borne by the union and TVA.

Although the written material reviewed by the author
pertinent to the grievance procedure of TVA does not
s ecificslly indicate presentation of the grievance at the
lower levels, it may be reasonably inferred that discussion

of grievances with immediate SUJOPViSCPS does precede the

M9

the actions described in the forgoing. The procedure
apparently is quite successful since only two cases were
submitted to arbitration in the first thirteen years of
fVA's Operations under collective bargaining agreements.1
Still another degree of variation in grievance
procedures and collective bargaining with civil service
employees is presented by the State of Michigan.2 State
employees may join “employee associations and organizations”
and are in fact represented by a branch of the AFSGFE and
a Michigan State Employees Association (msss) with a
preponderance of the employees belonging to the latter
organization. Unlike rhiladelphia, where employees are
represented by one union for all employees, state employees
in hichigan ere split between the two organizations cited
and no union affiliation at all. The status of the Richigan
strike rules is not clearly defined.3 Previous rules which
provided simply for dismissal penalty for any worker who
"absents himself from work by participating in a strike",
have been changed to specifically cover sit-down or slow-
down strikes and permit disciplinary action short of

1 harry h. Case, Personnel Policy in a Public Agency -
Ehe TVA Experience (New Kerk: herper and dros., 1955) pTHQ.

 

2 Interview with Mr. John R. O'Connor, employee Relations
Division of Civil Service Commission, State of kichigan,
MarCh 31, 19670

3"Civil Service in hichigxn State Government” 196E
Annual Report of the Depertment of Civil Service, State of
EiChigan, pain.

SO

dismissal against employees who take part in strike
activity.

Ehe grievance procedure in effect for state employees
in hichigen is essentially a five step procedure. Each of
the nearly two dozen departments of the state government1
maintains its own grievance rules and procedures which must
comply with state Civil Service Commission mimimum standards.2
These standards provide that an employee must be furnished
with a copy of the state grievance rules (for which he must
receipt) at the time of appointment and any subsequent
revision of the grievance procedure; that the procedure
is available to all employees regardless of membership in
an employee organization; employees haVe a right to fellow
mployee representation beginning with the first step of
the procedure, and any reasonable representation at the
third and fourth steps, and, the right of private consult-
ation at any time with any representative; speeals to
hearings boards may be made within fifteen days of final
decision by department head; employee end immediate supervisor
shall discuss and attempt to resolve any issues prior to
resort to the grievance procedure; grievances must be reduced
to writing at the first step of the grievcnce procedure;

1 Departmental listing contained in "Recognized Employee
Organization Payroll Deduction", Michigan Department of Civil
Service, October :9, 1966.

2 Letter dated September :3, 1966, "Revision of Depart-

mental Grievance Procedures", hichigan Department of Civil
Service. p.2.

and, in cases of dismissal, suspe sion, demotion, lay-off,
or similar actions, the grievance should be initiated at
that step where authority lies to so omplish the relief
requested.

The five step procedure essentially consists of the
following: 1 2

1) presentation of written grievance to the
immediate supervisor for consideration and action,3

2) presentation of the grievance to the division
head where the grievance occurred (normally the next echelon
of the supervisory structure),

3) apweul to the department head if no satisfactory
conclusion at the preceding level,

h) appeal to a hearing board,

5) further spneel to the State Civil Service
-Ommission.

Statistics for the year 1965 indicate that Phe over-
whelming majority of grievances are settled at the depart-
ment level (one of the three steps up to and including the
department head).u Of a total of 1150 employee grievances
submitted, 1037 were settled at the depertnent level. The

remaining 113 grievances were presented to a hearing board,

1 Ibid. pp.2-3.

2
p.tu.

3 This step is merely a formality since rules require

oral discussion with s pervisor prior to entering grievance
procedure.

"I.

"Civil Service in hichigan State Government" Cg.b t.

u Ibid.

S2

and 50 of these were further appealed to the state Civil
Service Commission.

ihe hearing board is interesting in several of its
features. Members are "prominent local citizens who
represent the public in a dispute between the state and the
employee".1 The members of the board are selected from
industry, labor, government, and the professions. One to
four members serve on the board at a hearing. These are
selected from a panel of ”prominent citizens" which at
the end of 1965 consisted of nine members. hearings are held
twice each month and members are remunerated for their
services on a per diem basis.

Additional steps for adjusting grievances exist out-
side the five step procedure outlined by the Civil Service
Commission and apparently receive relatively frequent use.
Matters pertaining to civil rights may be appealed to the
Civil Service Commission 93 the Civil Rights Commission.
Nine such appeals were adjusted by the Civil Rights Depart-
ment during l9oS. Court litigation is also available and
frequently implemented. Seven cases were rited es pending
comnletion of litigation at the end of calendar year 1965.

Ihe role of the unions in the grievance procedure appears

to be limited to furnishing the employee with representatiQI

during the grievance procedures. The interview with Mr.

1 Ibid.

 

1" {ll I! Lr‘

O'Connor, previously cited, indicates thet union activity
in the grievance nrocedure is largely limited to this
representation and bargaining negotitsticns with the state
Personnel Director regarding claims for wages lost, salary
scales, layoffs, and the like.

New procedures for grievance processing have been
prooosed by the state fimployee Relations Division of the
Civil Service Comn_ssion for incorporation into the 1966
Annual Report (not yet published). The draft furnished the
author in the interview cited indicates that the changes
propose? for incoooration have actually evolved during
grievance processing in the yeur 1966. The major changes
cited are as follows:1

1) the recognition of the right of the employee
to prior consultation with his employec organization,

2) the recognition of the right of the employee
to representation at step one as well as later steps,

3) the requirement of a written grievance state-
ment and answer at each step after informal, initial
discussion fails to resolve the problem,

A) the requirement that recognized employee organ-
izations have the right to confer with the departments in
develOping the wrocedures, and,

S) that recognized cmployec organization requests
for Changes in working conditions must be processed by

1 Unpublished mimeogre hed paper ”The Grievance Procedure"
undated.

 

. 1’1. Itlulll llitl‘ I

departnents under a commission conference procedure rather
than under the grievance procedure.

Additional plans have been develOped for a reduction in
hearing board actions by the eXpedient of submitting
grievance cases by brief when the facts are undisputed

but the reasonableness and fairness of the cepartment are

contested.
SUMhAHY

The procedures involved in the grievance processes
of the various governmental agencies discussed in this
chapter present a considerably more diversified and
variant framework than those previously cited in the
chapter on labor-management procedures. A brief summation
of the features 01 the civil service frame-work follows:

1) Written procedures are commonly used but not

 

universal in their application to the various steps of the
process. The Tennessee Valley Authority ap roach emphasizes
the use of oral procedures in grievance processing up to
the director of personnel. Several other agencies whose
practices have been reviewed require written procedures
at the first step, without regard as to whether outside
representation of the employee is available or utilized.

2) A multi-level approach to the grievance process

is in general use. A system of appeals is provided throughout,

 

 

II III ‘II III I.. I {III | ‘I

55

generally following the labor-management principles of
industry that authority increases with each successive
step of the process.
3) Settlement at the lowest possible level is
emphasized with numerous exhortations to supervisors in
use to support this emphasis. Settlement at the lowest
levels appears to be slightly less likely in government
frameworks than in industry. The reason for this difference
can probably be found in the complexity and number of
regulations, policy dictates, and, statutory limitations
inherent in government personnel procedures, which limit
actions by supervisors and provide a wealth of matter for
interpretation on which diaputes may be based. Paradoxicalw,
this structure also appears to reduce the number of
complaints initiated, since the guidelines contained in
these documents often obviate the need for complaints,
or the probability of successful prosecution of a complaint.
h) Formal procedures are initiated at the lowest

level possible. In all cases reviewed, the formal procedure

 

is initiated with the immediate supervisor. Even where the
oral pursuit of a grievance is initiated with the supervisor,
requirements exist for written procedures to be initiated

at this same level. The author's eXperience with the military
grievance procedure is confirmed by interview data obtained

from the Michigan Civil Service Commission, in that informal

reference to higher authority by either the employee or
his immediate supervisor (without complying with formal
grievance procedures) often result in settlements of
complaints without formal proceedings or records. TVA
procedures in this area are indicative of the high degree
of success available to this technique, however the TVA
example is unique in its comparative freedom from legis-
lation requiring compliance with specific governmental
dictates.

5) The right to appeal is usually unidlateral
and granted only to the employee in normal situations.
The structure of laws and regulations as well as the highly
authoritarian aspects of the governmental structure obviates
the need for mutual appeals provisions. Even where appeals
by the employees are taken before such agencies as the
Civil Rights Commission, or, litigated in the courts, it
must be recogniyed that the employee is simply dealing
with still another agency of government, albeit at a higher
level of authority in matters of interpretation of statutes
and regulations.

6) The point of final appeal varies from disinterested
parties to governmental executives. Where disinterested

boards or commissions are established in the appeals process

 

.II it. Ii 1 «I III I I'll
. ii I ill! [In 13" 1

57

their decisions or findings are only advisory in nature
with power only to recommend actions by governmental
agencies. Only in the example of the EVA is the final
apoeal to a disinterested party who has authority to make

a final decision which is binding on the disautants. This
exception is possible only due to the unique stature of TVA
in its com arative freedom from governmental regulation.
Philadelphia approaches a process for final appeals to

a disinterested party, but even here limitations on types
of decisions are imposed. As a practical matter, government
executives empowered to decide grievance appeals usually
adhere to the recommendations made by the imwartial

,boards established.

7) Records of written grievances and reaponses
are maintained by the government agency, with cowies
furnished to the employee. minutes and re orts of board
meetings, hearings by commissions and arbitrators are
similarly made a matter of record. Again, the exception
to the rule is TVA to the extent that grievance procedures
are handled orally up to the level of the director of
personnel for EVA. Records are maintained from the ooint
where oral discussion of the grievance with the director
has failec to achieve a mutually satisfactory solution.

All of the other agencies cited in this review require

S8

written records from the first step of the grievance
procedure onward.

8) Policies towards litigation vary. No general

 

prohibition of litigation was encountered in the review of
agencies cited in this investigation. The wording of reg-
ulations to the effect that decisions at a certain level
were "final" might be construed as limiting. Records of
litigations of grievances may be found for most agencies
and those involving the Civil Service Commission (and its
components) in Kichigan are cited in the text. Where lit-
igation is encountered, it is found to rest primarily

on the basis of stare decisis, where current decisions
deviate from established practices of the past. No effective
bar exists other than the general concept that the govern-
ment need not permit itself to become a defendant in
certain civil cases involving torts, and, this factor has
apparently not found itself resorted to in grievance
situations.

9) Time limits are established within which each

 

step of the grievance procedure must be com leted. These are
generally more liberal than those found in industry-labor
agreements from the point of View of the employee in that
more time is granted (in some cases up to a year) for the

employee to initiate his action or enter an appeal. Time

59

limitations for completion of action by the supervisor

in responding to a grievance are almost universal, and

are generally comparable to the time limits imposed by
agreements in industry. Provisions for waiver of these time
limits are made on a showing of necessity for such
purposes as extending an investigation, personal hardship
to the employee, and the like.

The forgoing outline of procedures for processing
grievances in the civil service must be considered in the
light of numerous factors, affecting the process, and,
peculiar to governmental agencies. A brief discussion
of some of these salient factors follows:

1) The grievance procedure envisioned by the
government is one which is promulgated unilaterally by
government and its executive representatives. There exist
only isolated instances where provisions are made for
discussion of policies with the employee with the intent
of adjusting those policies to mutual satisfaction. Where
such provisions exist, they are usually on the lower levels
of government, ie city government, and are the result of
initiatives by unions or other employee organizations
serving the same general purpose and having similar functions,
where such organiyations have been recognized.

2) The authority of the government representative

60

to negotiate is considerably hampered by a body of
statutory and regulatory restrictions on the functions
of his position and the accompanying authority to effect
change within the agency. These restrictions are based on
a considerably more formal and inflexible concept and
”chain of command" than those of industry. The ability of
employee organizations to effect change in this formalized
structure is also hampered by provisions limiting the
right to strike, and, in some areas limiting the point of
access of union representation into the grievance process.

3) Provisions are made for orienting the new
employee in the nature of the grievance process, and
regarding subsequent changes by formal procedures which
usually include furnishing copies of the grievance proced-
ural regulations to the employee and requiring that he
receipt for same. Unfortunately the wording and structure
of government regulations are often unintelligible to the
average person who has not had the benefit of some training
and eXperience in the ”gobbledygook” phraseology of
government. Thus channels and procedures of the grievance
procedure will not always be understood by the employee
deepite elaborate efforts to keep him informed.

A) As in the case of the labor-management dispute
in industry, grievances in government employment are usually

based on differences in interpretation of the written

61

directives and rules pertaining to employment practices
and procedures. In the governmental structure these
interpretations of rules often become quite complex,
primarily as the result of the applicability of several
regulations to a particular question. In the military
structure, situations where direct conflict between the
wording of two regulations exists, are not unheard of.

S) The structure of departments of the government
service and the job ratings scales of civil service are
such as to induce a more authoritarian relationship
between supervisors and subordinates. The practice of
assigning numerical scales to job positions leaves little
doubt as to the relative standings of employees in the
hierarchy of civil service. The statutory powers of executives
and detailed description of job functions as to sunervisorhl
roles tends to further enhance the class distinctions
inherent in civil service, with its inherent implications
for more formalized relationships between supervisors and
members of their department.

6) The emphasis on compliance with existing rules
and regulations inherent in government service tends to
create an aura of adjudication to the grievance process. The
tendency is to eXplore WHO is wrong rather than WHAT is
wrong, since existing rules prescribe what is right for

the situation, and rules are difficult to change.

62

In a broad sense, one may conceive of the civil
service grievance procedure as having a greater relation
to the police problem than that of industry. The quasi-
military structure of the police, together with their
inherent connections and relationships with government
at various levels, tend to establish conditions which
closely parallel many of those found in civil service
structures. A detailed discussion of these factors

follows in later chapters.

CHAPTER IV
THE INS‘ECTOR-GmHERAL AND PME ChBUDSkAN

The military inspector general and the ombudsman
are considered jointly since their functions Correspond
to a considerable degree. The subsequent discussion will
show that these functionaries are both, in a sense,
outside the scOpe of the grievance procedures which have
been considered thus far.

The title inspector general is particularly apt
since it describes one of the main functions of the office,
to wit, inspection. The following discussion of the office
of tne inspector general and his functions is limited to
the Army application in the United States military.1
Applications of the concept to the other armed forces
parallel this structure very closely, and therefore, a
discussion of the separate service operations of the office
would serve no practical purpose here.

The designation of an inepector general position
within the Army is specified by Tables of Organization and

1 The discussion of the Inspector General in the Army
is based on the author's experience as an investigating officer
for a command inspector general, participation in numerous

inspections by inepectors-general and involvement in the
accompanying ”complaint sessions" described in the discussion.

67

and Equipment, and, Tables of Distribution which establish
various units and installations. These tables are promul-
gated by the Department of the Army, subject to aoproval

by the Department of Defense. The position is normally
found at the staff level of divisional types of units and
higher, with provisions for furnishing an inspector general
for each installation Operated by the army. In the case of
extremely small organizations which are Operating separatéw
from their parent headquarters, and in some small install-
ations where the office is not provided, regulations require
the appointment of an "acting inepector—general" for
purposes of receiving complaints. The complaint function

of an inSpector-general of some type is therefore available
to personnel on an almost universal basis.

One of the major roles of the inspector general in
the Army is that of conducting inspections. The staff of
his office is manned to meet this specific need by including
specialists in the fields of administration, signal commun-
ications, ordnance, and, a secretarial staff.

The continuing and specific requirements for this
inspection function (all activities of the army are subject
to at least annual inspection by an inepector general) serve
to generate a considerable familiarity with the internal

functions of most of the units and activities of the

68

jurisdiction. Inspectors general are normally selected
from the higher military echelons (ranks of Lieutenant
Colonel are most frequently required, with hajors serving
a few of the smaller activities). Personnel in these ranks
have usually served for monathan fifteen years of active
duty and have acquired a considerable experience in most
phases of the military service.

All U. S. Army oersonnel (including civilian employees)
have a right to register comolaints directly with an
inspector general rather than take them up with their
suprevisor.l As a matter of actual practice, local regu-
lations and policies, as well as the nature of the office,
usually require that complainants exhaust remedies available
in the chain of command before action is initiated by the
inspector general. The work load generated by direct access
to the inspector-general in all cases would be prohibitive,
and, solutions to routine problems are normally found
within the complainants immediate chain of command.

The grievance procedures envisioned in the oral complaint
process through command channels are quite idealized and
some segment of the procedure is frequently skipped over
when a pragmatic rather than dogmatic approach is used.

The essentials of the system are as follows:
1) The military member discusses his complaint

with his immediate supervisor and requests corrective action.

1 Army Regulations 20-1 (Washington, D.C., July 16, T958)

69

(In the case of an enlisted complainant, this first step
involves two supervisors at the same level, ie the enlisted
supervisor (platoon sergeant) and commissioned supervisor
(platoon commander).)

2) Failing acceptable settlement of the complaint
at this level, the complainant takes u) his problem with the
next level of the chain of command. The dual enlisted/officer
aspect of the grievance process continues at this level, eg
first sergeant and company commander.

3) The process continues through the chain of
command, normally until an administrative headquarters
is reached in the chain of command. (An administrative
headquarters for purposes of com laint procedures is
usually construed as a headquarters where individual
personnel records are maintained and a specialized staff
of officer personnel is available to the commander.)

Local policies may dictate some variations in the chain
of command structures which must be followed in the griev-
ance process before a referral to the inspector general is
permissible.

The entire proceeding in the command structure of
complaints is normally handled on an oral basis. Complaints
as well as replies are made orally and briefings as to the

status of the comwlaint are usually given orally to the

70

next higher echelon of command by the commander whose
decision is being appealed. The procedure throughout
this oral process is quite flexible and techniques for
investigations, informal hearings, questioning of witnesses,
and examination of documents at this level of the
proceedings is variable and depends to a considerable
extent on the personalities involved and the degree to
which local ground rules dictate procedure. In any case,
these procedures are completely separate from the inspector
general functions and constitute required preliminaries
to making a complaint known to the inspector general. (As
a matter of actual practice, some personnel do present
complaints cirectly to tne inSpector general without
reference to the procedures cited. These are normally
referred back to command channels without action by the
inspector general other than to make informal notification
.to the local commander that a member of his command has
a complaint which should be processed by the command.)
Complaint procedures are usually stressed to a
sufficient degree within a command to insure familiarity
with the procedures by all personnel. Instructions as to
the complaint process are usually required to be posted on
unit bulletin boards with a requirement that the bulletin
be read by all personnel of the unit. Indirect and direct

sahctions available to the commander in enforcing these

71

procedures are usually sufficient to deter attempts to
make direct appeals to the inspector general.

A written complaint procedure is initiated at the
office of the inspector general when the individual
presents his com‘laint at that office. Normally, an oral
interview is conducted by the inepector-general or a member
of his staff, and the elements of the complaint are reduced
to writing in the form of a letter to the commander of the
complainant setting forth the details of the complaint,
and, requiring a response as to actions taken to remedy
the situation complained of or a statement as to why no
remedial action is deemed necessary. A specific time
limit is established wherein the commander must make his
reply. This time limit is determined by the inspector
general based on his evaluation of the problem, and, is
normally less than ten days although periods up to thirty
days are sometimes allowed.

It should be noted that not all complaints presented
are within the capability of the commander's remedial
action. Pay complaints are an oft occurring example. The
oral chain in this circumstance includes the finance officer
of the command, and, if action is required by the finance
officer or his representatives to remedy the situation,
the letter described is directed to that office by the

inspector general in a form similar to that described above.

72

Successive actions by the inspector general are
dictated by the general circumstances of the complaint
in question. Frequently a determination of the dESpositicn
of the complaint is based on the reaponse of the commander,
or other responsible officer to the initial letter of
inquiry. Where the complexity of the matter, or, the
nature of the allegations of the complaint require such
action, investigating officers or boards of officers may
be appointed by the inspector general to adduce additional
information regarding the complaint. The investigators
are selected from officers assigned to the command on
the basis of specific experience in the area complained
of and impartiality. Sanctions against misrepresentations
on the part of an investigating officer are sufficiently
extreme to preclude ”overly liberal" interpretation of the
facts even where close friends are involved. An understanding
of the military officer's code of ethics provides a valuable
insight into this aspect of the procedure. There are no
doubt exceptions to any rule, but, they are few and far
between in cases of this nature. the elements of the complaint
are judged on the merits of the individual allegation as
viewed in the light of applicable regulations. In a system
where almost every human action is regulated, in writing,

the latitude available in the investigation and recommendation

73
process is negligible.

The final result of the investigation is a recommend-
ation to the inspector general supqorted by statements of
witnesses and such other evidence as is available. The
inspector general is not bound by the recommendation and
may decide that additional investigation is necessary. In
extreme circumstances he may obtain the appointment of a
new investigating officer or board and disregard the
recommendations and findings of the initial investigators.

The autheri:y of the inSJector general is basically
that of the commander he serves. his orders as to disposi-
tion of a complaint are normally conVeyed in the name of
that commander. This he does in cases of com laints where
specific regulations are deemed applicable. Quite often he
uses his considerable powers of persuasion to influence
commanders to reconsider their previous determinations.
This is usually done orally with follow-up corresoondence

I

indicating that the matter is to be resolved 'per conversation

of date ”.

An unusual facet of the inspector general in the
military community is that he has access to higher levels
of command without the requirement of following normal
military channels. Thus when problems arise, which in his
estimation involve the commander on whose staff he serves,

or where in his jucgment prejudices exist a that level, he

71'.

has acces to higher authority through inspector general
channels. In the eXperience of this author this occurs
on extremely rare occasions under highly singular circum-
stances.

One other interesting facet of the inspector general
complaint process remains. The inspection function of the
inspector general and his staff has already been referred
to. In d>njunction with these inspections, complaint
sessions are held at the unit or activity being inSpected.
A room is set aside where the inepector general remains
available for a specified period of time to receive
complaints directly from members of the unit or activity.
The complaint session is confidential and avails the
members of the command direct access to the inspector
general without a requirement for first observing the chain
of command process. Comolaints received at such sessions
are usually minor in nature and commonly deal with the
general living conditions and atmOSphere of the unit or
activity being inapected. The results of the interviews
conducted during this complaint session, and, the results
of inSpector general conversations with unit personnel
during his inspection are used in assessing and evaluating
the over-all status of such intangibles as the morale of
the unit. Such observations are recorded in the inspection

report comnleted by the inspector general staff, and, in

75

combination with other aspects of his report may have
serious implications for the unit commander's evaluation
by his superiors. In this manner the complaint session may
be viewed as a preventive measure in the grievance process.
The effectiveness of this measure is extremely difficult

to assess and varies considerably with the degree of
compliance with the spirit as well as the letter of the

regulations by the unit commander and his staff.
The OhBUDShAN

”The Ombudsman is an officer of Parliament who
investigates complaints from citizens that they have been
unfairly dealt with by government departments, and who, if
he finds that a comalaint is justified, seeks a remedy."1
The Ombudsman is essentially of Scandinavian origin
finding its inception in Sweden, and subsequently being
adopted by Finland and Denmark, with later innovation into
a "Parliamentary Commissioner for Investigations” in far-
flung New Lealand.2

It bears repeating that the structure of the Ombudsman‘s
office is such as to require that administrative appeals

1 Donald C. Rowat (Ed), The Ombudsman (London: Unwin
Brothers, Ltd., 1965) p.7.

 

2 A detailed discussion of the Ombudsman, the nature of
the office in various nations, and, the extent of acceptance
is contained in Walter Gellhorn, The Ombudsman and Others
(Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1966)

76

appeals processes available to the citizen must be

exhausted before his complaint will be acted upon by the
Ombudsman. A detailed discussion of the various administrative
procedures envisioned in the Ombudsman's functions through-
out the various countries in which he functions is beyond
the scope of this investigation. Primary emphasis here

will be limited to the office as it exists in Denmark. This
selection was made since the personality and efforts of

the Danish Ombudsman, Dr. Stephan Hurwitz, have been largely
reaponsible for the considerable amount of attention
directed towards this institution in the United States as
well as in other nations. The extent of this public educa-
tion effort on the part of Dr. fiurwitz, and a listing of
interviews, articles, and appearances relative to this

effort is contained in Gellhorn's text, The Ombudsman and
l

 

Others.
The position of the Ombudsman is the answer supplied

by some nations to the question: how best can we quickly

and fairly inquire into allegations of unfair dealings

or imprOprieties by public agencies and officials? In

Denmark the position is one created by the constitution,

and calls for the election of an Ombudsman by the Parliament.
1 Ibid. All data pertinent to the Danish Ombudsman

reported in this investigation is derived from this source,

which appears to be the most recent and authoritative study

of the field available. Information relative to the Danish

Constitution anc statutory rules applicable to it are

similarly derived from this text. exceptions are separately
identified.

77

The election is held after each general election but the
Ombudsman may be replaced by a new election whenever he no
longer has the confidence of the Folketing (Parliament).
The office as amended by statute creates a single Parliamentary
Commissioner (Ombudsman) with authority to deal with both
civil and military administration.

lhe internal procedures of the various departments
of the Danish government provide for the administrative
handling of complaints, with only broad guidance by statutes
prescribing that full review of documentary materials and
evidence bearing on the case be made before a decision is
rendered. This Act,1 passed in 196A, supplanted a period
almost entirely free from statutory procedural requirements.
Judicial review of administrative complaints is available
in the courts, however, the process is quite slow and
costly, with the result that litigation is infrequent.

The extent of the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman has
eXpanoed over the years. The l95h statute which created
the Ombudsman was subsequently amended to award jurisdiction
over all civil and military central government administration
exclusive of the courts. His jurisdiction extends to all
ministers, civil servants and other persons acting in the
service of the state (all those on the national pay-roll,
which includes university professors, museum curators,

1 Administrative Procedure Act, No. lhl, May 13, lQoh.

78

clergyman and ballet directors) except those engaged in
judicial administration. In 1962 this authority and
jurisdiction was eXpanded to include local governments

in cases where recourse to a central government authority
was available.

One of the features of the Ombudsman in Denmark is
that he is not required to act on complaint alone but may
proceed on his own initiative. This factor in combination
with his jurisdictional sc0pe would allow investigation of
almost any arm of government at the local and national
levels.

The Ombudsman's formal powers include the ordering of
investigations by public prosecutors, or, criminal court
proceedings in the ordinary law courts; or, he may order
that disciplinary proceedings be initiated by the proper
authority. Gellhorn points out that the Ombudsman has not
once curing eleven years of activity ordered either a
prosecution or a disciplinary proceeding, though in a number
of cases he has ordered the prosecutor to carry on investi-
gations. The primary techniques utilized by Dr. Hurwitz in
his performance of the Ombudsman role have been those of
passing on the merits of a specific decision and suggesting
methodological improvements. He has exoressed criticism in
cases even where the outcome of the question was not at
stake. The powers of persuasion attributed to the ins ector

general in the preceding discussion are apparently also used

79

with considerable effect by the Ombudsman.

The authority of the Ombudsman permits him to
proceed upon the basis of comolaint, upon his own initiative
or by direct inepeetion of official Operations. In this
respect the Ombudsman's authority parallels that of the
inspector general, however the preportionate involvement
in these types of activities vary considerably. The
Ombudsman does not soend any great portion of his time in
inspections (unlike the inspector general). To a degree
this reflects Dr. Hurwitz's skepticism about the value
of routine inapections. (The Ombudsman of Sweden and Finland
favor inspection trips, and, make wide use of this method.
Gellhorn apparently shares Dr. Hurwitt's skepticism in
this area.)

The asparent result of this disinclination towards
inspection trips is a commensurately low number of investi-
gations based on initiative. The greatest amount of action
generated by the office of the Danish Ombudsman is based on
complaints. Soecific requirements must be met before the
Ombudsman will undertake an investigation of a complaint.
Statutory requirements exist which stipulate that a complain-
ant must identify himself; must lodge his complaint within
a year after his grievance arose; must have exhausted all
available administrative remedies; and the Ombudsman must

determine whether the complaint gives sufficient grounds

80

for investigation. Complaints must ordinarily be accompanied
by evidence and must be in writing. The Ombudsman may refuse
to act on a complaint if he believes that the complaint is
unfcunded, or that its subject matter is insignificant. Of

a total of 5,7h5 matters registered with the Ombudsman's
office during IQbO-lgéh, only 856 cases were taken up for
investigation (1L.9% of those submitted). Perhaps half of
those not considered were either outside the jurisdiction

of the Ombudsman, or, were dismissed because administrative
remedies had not been exhausted.

Gellhorn‘s investigation revelaed that a great majority
of complaints submitted to the Ombudsman were not against
individuals but rather against organizations generally.

The process of investigating the complaints was quite slow,
ranging from two weeks to two months in 25% of the cases,
and two to four months in most of the remaining cases. Some
of the investigations took as much as a year to complete.

The Ombudsman's staff consists of seven lawyers and
five clerical employees. The lawyers are in dual employment
status and ostensibly work part—time. The Ombudsman does have
the final word in all cases investigated by his office but
the staff described renders valuable assistance to him in
his preoarations. Complaints are received by the Ombudsman

personally, reviewed and passed on to a member of his staff

81

for development of facts pertinent to the case. The
individual staff members work with a considerable degree
of independence, with considerably more freedom to take
initiative than their counterparts in other Scandinavian
Ombudsman's offices. The final product of the work by the
staff member is subject to final review and approval by
the Ombudsman. Delays are often encountered in eliciting
replies from government agencies which have been queried
by the Ombudsman or his staff regarding complaints. Usual
procedure is to follow up such delays with another letter
if a reply has not been forthcoming within a period of
two months. In view of this time lapse, which is apparently
not infrequent, it ap_ears somewhat paradoxical that one
of the Ombudsman fun tionsis to investigate delays in
actions by government agencies. Exceptions to the rules
requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies are made
when an agency of the government has been tardy in comaleting
a requested action, and a complaint is made by a citizen
alleging such delay as being unreasonable or unnecessary.
The imoression conveyed to this author by the length
of procedures encompassed by the Ombudsman in his function
is that such procedures would not be generally acceptable
as remedies to complaint problems in the United States,
simply by virtue of the time elapsed in arriving at decisions.

Gellhorn's conclusions regarding the office of the Ombudsman

82

is that "no panacea for the cure of government ills exists.
The greatest injustice to the ombudsman would be to regard
him as the possessor of a cure-all."

In recent years there has been considerable discussion
of the advisability of instituting an ombudsman in the
United States. Messrs. Reuse and hunsey liken the position
of the senator and the representative in the United States

1 The authors refer

government to that of the Cmbudsman.
Specifically to the complaint receiving and processing
functions performed by congressmen and members of their
staff. leference is made to the advisability of appointing
an administrative counsel to the congress who would perform
the role of Ombudsman, receiving complaints from citizens
through their congressmen, thereby relieving the congress-
man of the burden of complaint investigations.

Other writers support the institution of an Ombudsman
at the state level, citing the complexities of state govern-
ment as it has evolved over the years as indicative of the
need for this action.2 The role envisioned for this state
Ombudsman consists primarily of a ”watchdog" function,

designed to curb wrong-doing within the various departments

of state government. The recent controversy in Mew York City

1 Henry S. Reuss and Everard Munsey, "The United States”
in Donald C. Rowat (Ed) The Ombudsman Op.Cit.pp.19h-200o

2 Ralph Nader, "Ombudsman for State Government” Ibid-pp.2Ml-6.

83

OVer a Civilian Police Review Board resulted in the defeat
of the review board in a public referendum and considerable
subsequent publicity in the New York press regarding the
advisibility of instituting an Ombudsman to fill the void
created by the review board defeat. (A police instituted
review board process was actually substituted with no
further action on the Ombudsman proocsals made by the news

media.) Rowat includes an appendix in his text The Ombudsman

 

which lists proposed bills whicn wculd institute Ombudsman
in Connecticut, the United States federal government, and,
lists data pertinent to similar proposals in Canada and
Great Britain. Tables outlining the activities of Ombudsmen
in Finland, Norway and Sweden are also ind.uded in this

appendix.1
SUhhARY

The various similarities between the Ombudsman and the
Inspector General lend themselves to joint discussion and
comparison. Some of these similarities have resulted from
interpretation and usage of the statutes and regulations

initiating these institutions but are nevertheless real.

1 Ibid.pp.305-321.

8h

In actual practice, both offices may be describes as
a sort ”court of last resort” in the grievance pPOCeLure
rather than as a function of the grievance system itself.
The Ombudsman will investigate only those complaints
where all administrative remedies available have been
exhausted, and, this limitation on his functions is
imposed by statute. Deseite regulatory prescription indic-
ating that complaints may be referred directly to an inapector
general, usage and interpretation have resulted in a sit-
uation very similar to that of the ombudsman. Normal
military channels must normally be eXplored before a formal
proceeding by an inspector general is initiated. The nature
and stature of both offices dictate that such a procedure
be followed. The work load inherent in attempts to process
all complaints without other prior reference would be such
as to severely over-tax the capabilities of such an office
unless it were expanded to the stature of a separate bureau-
cracy. Both functionaries can perhaps best be compared with
the arbitrator or umpire systems utilized in the grievance
systems of industry. An evaluation of the features discussed
in the summaries of the chapters on grievance procedures
in industry and civil service will serve to point out the

various similarities and cifferences between these offices

andthe procedures referred to earlier.

85

1) Written procedures are used in the investigations

 

of complaints by both the tmbudsman and the InSpector
General. Whereas the ombudsman regulations require that
complaints be in writing, the inspector general may often
receive complaints orally, and, assist in reducing the facts
of the complaint to a writing which is used in subsequent
investigations and actions. Written corresgondences with

the agencies complained against are features of both systems.

2) A multi—level approach is provided by regulations
pertinent to the inspector general which.visualize successive
channels of inepector general where complaints are not
satisfactorily resolved by the level appealed to. In actual
practice this is seldom done, although the machinery exists
and may be utilized. The ombudsman as utilized in Denmark
is essentially a one step facility, although little
imagination would be required to visualize the effect of
installation of ombudsmen at the local levels of government
and the ultimate relationship with a national ombudsman.

When visualized in this context the two positions are
remarkably similar.

3) Settlement at the lowest possible level does
not come into play in these concepts to the degree that
exhaustion or reference to lower level administrative
(or command) remedies are required by both systems. Even
where comalaints referred to either the Ombudsman or the

Inspector General, actions to correct or remedy the situation

86

complained of are often obtained by using powers of
persuasion on the lower eChelons of administration and
command to effect a solution.

h) There is no stipulation as to the level at

 

which procedures must be initiated. In essence the procedures
for both the inspector general and the ombudsman are one-

level in nature and both have the authority for access to

any level of the administration required by the circumstances
of a particular complaint. Actual practice as to the level

of administration which these functionaries contact to

initiate investigations or corrections of complaints are

quite flexible and to a great degree will vary with the
personality, exeerience, and, familiarity with the organization
of the inoividual conducting the investigation.

5) A right to appeal to higher channels is provided
in the inspector general concept. The ombudsman is the final
point of appeal in his system. Further recourse to the courts
is available in both systems. Court actions may be based on
criminal allegations or civil actions alleging damages.

6) Records of grievances and their disposition
are maintained in both systems. Both envision written, formal
procedures in the recording of complaints and responses as
well as intermediate corresvondence, investigation reports,

and, evidence adduced, all maintained as a matter of record.

87

7) Time limits in both systems are extremely
flexible. Under the Danish system, complaints must be
registered with the Ombudsman within a year of the cause
for complaint. Personal knowledge of the author and subsequent
investigation reveal no time limit stipulation for making
complaints known under the ins ector general system. No
specific time requirements wherein complaints must be
adeSted or rejected are found in either system. Time elapsed
from receipt to adjudication of complaints is based on the
particular situation and difficulties inherent in it.
Barring repeated assessments of inefficiency in the handling
of complaints which could lead to removal from office, no
limitations to time are imposed in either system on the
complaint adjudicator.

A discussion of the more obvious advantages and limit-
ations of these two functionaries would necessarily include
the following:

1) Both offices provide a point of appeal from
administrative decisions to persons who might otherwise be
faced with a fait accomplis. The availability of such an
office may (depending on its administration and actions)
provide a deterrent to unfair practices. Such a deterrent
must obviously rest on the ability of the office to impose
effective sanctions, a feature incorporated into both

systems.

 

‘I [II ‘III [Ill I. [1‘1] [- I] V ,1 II

88

2) Effective functioning of the office requires
access to files, records and personnel of the activities
under scrutiny. A primary consideration of this requirement
for access is security. The approach in both systems has
been to grant necessary security clearances to personnel
attached to the office, as well as the functionary, to
permit access to information affecting the national security.

3) Effective operation of these offices requires
a wide range of eXpertise. Complaints can be and are received
regarding the operations of a wide variety of administrative
and technical agencies of the systems wherein jurisdiction
is exercised. Qualified personnel with suitable education
and eXperience to meet the needs of these offices may often
be hard to find. The problem is particularly difficult in
the case of the ombudsman where the range of activities
encompasses the activities and functions of an entire
governmental system.

u) The ideal of unbiased, non—partisan, objective
judges of complaints is difficult of realization. The
insoector general and the ombudsman are appointed or elected
officials, and to some degree must invariably be swayed by
this source of their power (the commander of the legislature).
Gellhorm makes reference to the "political tact" exercised

by the Danish ombudsman in his dealings with local groups.1

1 Gellhorn, On.Cit. p.11.

89

flhe military career officer, appointed to the post of
inspector general, could hardly be eXpected to be enthus-
iastic about criticizing the actions or decisions of the
commander res onsible for his appointment (who normally
plays an important role in the completion of efficiency
reports which may seriously affect the officers career).

5) The over-all effectiveness of either program
depends to a considerable degree on the attitudes of
prospective com lainants towards the office. In brief,
the willingness of persons to register complaints with
either of these functionaries depends on the amount of
confidence in the particular personality holding the
office, known eXperiences of other complainants, varying
degrees of fear of resprisal, and, general acceptance of
the function. An attitude of “what's the use?" on the
part of the general public could easily dissuade an

individual from registering a complaint.

 

 

‘ 1 l x u 1

CHAPTsR v
A COMPARATIVE STUDY

The forgoing chapters have presented an overview of
some of the better known, more widely used, grievance
procedures in use in industry, government, and the military.
It should be noted that these discussions have hinged on
the actual manner of oaeration of the systems. Where these
operations deviated from the prescribed (wr regulatory)
grocezures this factor was siecifically pointed out. It
cannot be inferred that other similar structures will
deviate in identical ways from the established rules, or
for that matter, that they will deviate at all. The local
policies under which systems Operaie vary considerably
according to location and circumstance, and, varying
concepts of a particular system may be formulated.

The method employed in this comparison will follow
the general structure shown below:

1) a step by step comparison of the characteristics
of each system as discussed in the summaries of the
preceding chapters, eg time limits, multi-level processing,
requirement for written procedures, etc.

2) a comparison of the deviations from regulations

in existence in administering the process and the reasons for

91

these deviations as inferred from a study of the process,
and,

3) a comparison of the persons to whom the
procedures are available, from the standpoint of job tenure,
contractual agreements, types of representation afforded
and the necessity for same in the light of the individuals
education, training and experience; relationship of the
individual to the system to which he is directing his
complaint; and, probable attitudes of the individual

towards the position which he holds in the grievance system.
CHARACTERISTICS OH Tdh SYSPEM

Written Procedures. General acceptance of the need

 

for written procedures at some level of the grievance
procedure prevails. Such procedures are usually dictated
by contract agreements, internal regulations or statutory
provisions. The level where such writings are required
varies from system to system and these variances are
worthy of consideration.

In the typical labor-industry agreement, stipulations
are made that grievances be reduced to writing after oral
contact at the lowest supervisorial level has failed to
achieve a settlement. Civil service regulations establish

a similar requirement but unofficial procedures usually

92

carry the process one step higher before reverting to

the written techniques prescribed. (It seems likely that

a similar process takes place informally in the labor-
management relationship, however, persons interviewed

re arding this matter would not commit themselves to any
degree on this subject.) In the practical functions of

the inepector general system (as Opposed to purely
regulatory requirements), the oral system of interviews
follows two or three su_ervisorial steps prior to reduction
to writing. Considering only these three types of grievance
processes, it appears that the more authoritarian the system,
the more levels of oral grievance procedures are actually
followed. Another factor accompanying this phenomenon is

the increase in the number and specificity of written rules
and regulations applied, and, a cecreasing degree of
flexibility in altering the rules. Taking another perSpective
there is greater emphasis on written records in the system
where greater possibilities for effecting change are present
(the labor-industry system).

It would appear that a greater need for original writings
by the complainant would exist in a system where adjudicatory
processes follow. The fact finding process of determining
WHAT is wrong, as o posed to WHO is wrong, would tend to
emphasize the actual functions surrounding the Com laint

rather than the complaint itself.

'llllil '1' I I 1" Idling-l1. .I‘Il [ I 1"". 4'. I l I! I'll: ill: I I [III II. in] I'll I

93

Nulti-level approach. All of the processes

 

studied envision a multi-level approach in some aSpect
of the grievance system. The pragmatic considerations
apparent in such a multi-level technique are fairly
straightforward and include:

1) conservation of time and money by providing
direct, informal procedures for settling minor problems
at the lowest level possible.

2) provision for settling problems at a level
where misuoderstandings are less likely to occur,

3) reinforcing authority of supervisors at
various levels of the supervisorial chain, and,

h) providing a consensus of opinion and judgment
in problems sufficiently serious or complex to warrant
consideration by higher authority, as well as providing
an appellate procedure consistent with the nature of the
problem.

The need for appropriate wontrols and supervision
of the process varies with the nature of the system and
its appli ation. Some possible considerations include
misinterpretation or usurpation of power of superiors
at lower levels, loss of understanding in written processes,
and the numerous additional factors cited in Chapter II

of this text.

9t

Settlement at the lowest level. Actual practices

 

reveal a concerted agreement on this principle. The
preceding discussion of the multi-level approach outlines
many of the advantages of such settlement. The major
problem attendant to the practical apolications of this
principle lies in the question of whether or not a written
record of grievances should be made at the lowest level,
and, if so, of what grievances. Decisions in this aspect
vary and appear to be based primarily on pragmatic
censiderations of the value of the written record and

the possible hazards involved in not maintaining such a
record. The primary purpose of the complaint system.may
again be seen as having a bearing; whether the determination
is based on WHO or WHAT is wrong, will often have serious
implications for the process.

Level at which the procedure must be initiated. In
the general application of the system, requirements exist
for initiating procedures at the lowest possible level of
supervision. Exceptional cases provide for initiation of
procedures "at the level of authority competent and
authorized to take the corrective action requested". This
latter provision assumes an ability on the part of the
complainant to make a determination of where this authority
lies, and should rest on a well publicized ano defined

chain of authority. It is generally well established that

9‘5

where complaints are received by high levels of authority,
eg congressmen, the ombudsman, that usual practice is
referral to a subordinate authority for action. The nature
of the relationship between ”he personnel involved at the
initiating level would appear to be an important factor

in arriving at a decision in this matter.

Right to 850831. The right to apoeal is presented as
being unilateral or bilateral depending on the agency
involved. In any case, a right to appeal is inherent in
each of the systems discussed except the ombudsman, who is
himself a final point of appeal. The right to appeal tends
to take on a more bilateral aspect where the circumstances
are such as to generate bilateral formulation of the rules
pertinent to an operation, eg labor and management. The
question of the right to appeal apnears to be primarily
one of degree, and is at least partially dependent on the
structure of the organizations involved and their resultant
capability to afford successive levels of appeal within
these structures.

Written records of grievance procedures. Policies in
this matter corresoond largely to those discussed under
the heading of written procedures earlier in this chapter.
Other considerations not previously mentioned include
questions of gathering statistical data, establishment of

precedents, possibility of litigation, statutory requirements

as

for data, and general internal management requirements.

Time linits. Excepting the cases of the inspector

 

general and the ombudsman, the concept of establishing
time limits for the completion of the various phases of
the grievance procedure apcears generally a cepted. Even
in the exceptional cases cited, the pressures for efficiency
and the possibility of loss of tenure apnear to present
formidable pressures for timely completion of procedures.
A degree of flexibility is required in.a¢ministering such
time limitations and these are normally provided for by
waiver stipulations. Though uime is an important factor,
proper and equitable diaposition of the complaint remains
the primary purpose of the process in its conception as

a tool for maintaining satisfactory relationships with
prOSpective complainants. Time limits become longer and
generally more flexible as a higher level of authority
(and presumably a greater degree of complexity in the
nature of the problem) is reached. The structure of the
grievance system must provide sufficient personnel and
facilities to maintain the time limits imposed by the
system.

Litigation policies. By an; large, no effective bars

 

to litigation are imposed by any of the systems reviewed.

In the View of this author, bars against litigation on

A ‘ i llllllllll “nil Illa! ll.‘
lull IIJI 1‘ J‘ | lull (
l .II: I I . I .

97

reaching specified levels of the grievance process would
serve a practical purpose. It has been emphasized throughout
this text that the grievance procedure should concern itself
with WHAT not WHO is wrong in the system. The adjudication
of complaints alleging a violation of statute or specific
losses alleged to be the result of breaches of contract
are areas best disposed of by personnel trained in the law
via judicial proceedings in a court of law. The removal of
such complaints from the grievance system should serve to
support an inclination towards objective evaluation of the
functional procedures involved in a dispute. Obviously the
road must be left open to removal of such inherently legal
disputes within the system, but, once an appPOpriate level
of management or supervision has denied a claim for money
damages, etc., reference should be to an adju‘icatory
process, not a grievance process. Violations of statute
alleged by a complainant similarly have no place in the
grievance procedure except where such violations are
of a very minor nature.

Admittedly, the circumstances of each separate grievance
might warrant soecial consideration, but it appears that
a general stipulation that on reaching a soecified step of
the grievance machinery, further appeals in the grievance
process consitute a waiver of rights to litigation, would

be generally beneficial, and, would serve to preclude what

is essentially a "double jeopardy“ situation. Such a
procedure could have considerable effect on the work load
imposed on the grievance machinery with attendant savings
in time, money and effort, maintenance of records, and
policy formulation, as well as help provide a more objective
atmosphere in the cases reviewed by the grievance machinery.
The number of cases which have received favorable or
unfavorable action in the grievance process solely because
"we don't want to go to court”, or, "if he feels strongly
enough about it, let him go to court" is open to conjecture.
No doubt these feelings have had §g§g_influence on decisions
in £922 cases acted on in the grievance system.
A table, summarizing the practices and policies
of the various agencies discussed towards the forgoing
characteristics, is contained on the following page of the

tGXto
DEVIATICNS FROM PRCCDDUHES

During the comparisons of the characteristics of the
various systems, and the preceding chapters devoted to
discussion of these characteristics, several deviations
from the requirements of written regulations were noted.
These came to light primarily in the more authoritarian

systems where the regulations regarding the grievance

I tr, , 1 . " ~ ~.
on not, . of Lon glands)

Civil inspector

Industry service General Ombudsman
’hritten Yes Yes Yes (by IG) Yes
lrocelurcs
multi—level 168 Yes fies (rarely to

used)

dottl£u€nt at Yes Yes Yes ies
lowest level
night to its Yes fies ho
qubsal
arittcn necord Yes Ves Yes {es
saintained
lime limits Ies Yes no no
night to Yesl Yes Yes :es
Litigate
Level of Immediate Immediate At 1C unbudsman
Tnitiation supervisor supervisor

1 Some prohibitions arainst litigation are included in union
acreetenbs.

2 Bone provisions in exceptional instances to initiate action
at level of autzoritv ennowered to take corrective action being
sought by complainant.

100

system were promulgated as the result of a uni-lateral
action rather than agreement between representatives of
complainants and those acting on them.

In the civil service system procedures described,
it was noted that attempts to resolve grievances informally
without reference to the established grievance procedures
were quite frequent. In this author's eXperience such
attempts usually resulted from a mutual desire to establish
further, whether or not the problem at hand aauld be resolved
without reference to the written proceedings and associated
board action required by the grievance system.

fhe acministrative problems inherent in effecting
change often preclude appropriate alterations of systems
established within a bureaucracy, and, this is illustrated
by numerous circumstances within government and its legis—
lation, eg the large number of unenforced, "undesireable",
laws which remain ”on the books" despite oublic and official
opposition. The fact that the system continues to operate
to the mutual satisfaction of both the supervisory and
employee group involved, is in itself a indication that
formalized rules pertaining to this segment of the system
could be revised to provide an added degree of correlation
of the rules to actual practices.

fhe functions of the inspector general provide another

 

llllliil‘lll'. Ill“ I'llv‘lsl‘ll {1 iii: I.’

101

example of local usage altering written decree procedures.
Obviously if all the complaints which are presently settled
at lower levels of command without reference to the inSpector
general, were suddenly brought to the direct attention of
that office, it would have to be expanded considerably in
terms of both staff and facilities to meet the increase in
comolaints to be processed.

Argunents can be made for retention of both the civil
service and inspector general regulations, desoite the
deviation from these regulations which is in widespread
effect. Neither group of rules prohibit the practices
engaged in by supervisors and subordinates, thus permitting
the use of the less formal procedures, without the effect
of removing the ”club” of formal action from over the heads
of individuals who might otherwise take arbitrary actions
in the complaint process.

THE CC}: ELLA IRAN T

The discussion to this point has been limited to the
structure of the various systems under consideration and the
functioning of the various components of the system without
regard to the similarities and differences between complainants
in the various systems. There are differences in the complaint
procedures afforded to personnel with varying status within

the system.

102

A salaried employee in industry does not have avail—
able to him all the resources inherent in union membership,
and subsequently the grievance system established for the
hourly wage-scale worker is not Open to him. He must usually
resort to direct contacts with supervisors and rely on
favorable findings from these supervisors to correct a
problem or complaint.

It can be logically inferred that the higher a position
an individual holds within a structure, the more involved
he becomes in formulating policy and procedure of that
structure, and, the less diSposed he becomes toward making
formal complaints within, or regarding that structure. The
president of a company, the head of a government agency, a
general commanding a post, very few if any of these officials
would find a need for making a complaint through some form
of grievance machinery. We can thus perceive a continuum
of complaints ranging from the most frequent near the

bottom of the structure to the least frequent near the top.
SUMMARY

The general conclusions and assumptions made in this
chapter regarding attitudes, position relationships,

comparative characteristics of systems and the nature of the

103

source of complaints have been derived from a hepefully
logical appraisal of the various elements involved.
Exceptions to the general presumptions and deductions
made here no doubt abound in innumerable other examples
of a similar nature. Since the element of human nature
and human relationships play an immortant part in the
grievance system, such variances should not be surprising.
In the following chapter these conclusions will be
related to the police complaint function. Emphasis there
will be on evaluating the various aSpects of the systems
compared, in the light of the general philos0phies, needs,
and practices in handling complaints by a police department.
An effort will be made to integrate the methods utilized
in the various systems evaluated, into a single entity

with application to the peculiarities of the problems

inherent in a police comulaint system.

CHAPTdR VI

DmVELCPING A PCLIJo CCthAINT PROCJDURE

lhe need for a means of reciprocal communications
between the police and the community they serve has been
pointed out earlier. A wide variety of techniques in
maintaining such communications via a complaint system
are presently in effect. Departmental rules prescribing
the nature and form of the system vary from place to
place over a continuum.which ranges from the non-existent
to the highly complex.

The general tendency of any group to take for granted
the efforts of leaders who provide them with a satisfactory
establishment, and, to Complain loudly when the system is
less than satisfactory, is generally accepted as a fact of
life. It follows that the majority of communiCations from
individual citizens to any department of government will
consist of requests for assistance and complaints. The
requests for assistance should not ordinarily take on an
adversarial nature, except as the handling of such requests
results in additional complaints. The complaint aspect of
communications therefore takes on considerable signifigance
when considered in terms of probable proportions of

communications.

105

The relationship envisioned in the communications
between the public and personnel involved in the administration
of justice is complicated by the fact that personnel
engaged in the administration of justice are ”not overly
socially acceptable to the general public, and ... work for
salaries usually lower than comparable salaries in other
employment.“1 This hypothesis indicates something of the
general nature of relationships which can be eXpected in the
ooerations of a police complaint system.

Another consideration lies in the fact that the
complaint and resultant procedures may culminate in discip-
linary measures against members of the police. Germann has
aptly stated that ”Probably the most delicate interns
control problem facing the police executive is that of
discipline.”2 Another authority in the field emphasizes
the need for early recognition of misconduct by members
of the police force, and, the need for early remedial action.3

It becomes readily apparent that a police complaint
procedure envisions a process of receiving complaints from
a highly critical group, with little faith in ‘he police;

1 Paul B. Weston, Supervision in the Administration of

Police, Courts, Corrections (Springfield, Ill: Charles C
Thomas, 1965) p.h-§.

 

2 A. C. Germann, Police Personnel kanagement (Springfield,
Ill: Charles C Thomas, 1963) p.16h.

3 R. Dean Smith, ”Inspection and Control” in The Police
Chief, July, l9oh. p.10.

 

106

a determination of the validity of the complaint by
personnel who are sympathetic towards the actions of the
individual or system complained against (if police process
the complaints); and, where possible, preclude further
complaints of a similar nature by taking action which
will satisfy the complainant, and, be consistent with
current efforts of the department in the fields of policy
making, public, and, community relations. Such a procedure
should have available to it assistance and cOOperation
from the research, personnel, community relations, legal,
internal investigation, and, command organizations of the
department. Subsequent implications for training of
personnel operating in the complaint field are obvious.

The forgoing assumes a complaint procedure which lies
within the police department and which is administered solely
by police personnel or their civilian emoloyeos. The need
for a point of final aspeal or review outside the police
department has been frequently stressed by the United States
Commission on Civil Rights. A California Advisory Committee
to this commission has stressed this point and recommended
greater publicity to the methods of complaint and redress
available to the public.1 The advantages accruing to both

1 California Advisory Committee to the United States
Civil Rights Commission. "Report on California - Police
Minority Group Relations" August 1963. p.39.

10?

parties if they can ”be big enough" to resolve their own
problems without resorting to a third agency have been
previously citedl however the need for arbitration by an
impartial party has been apparent in the systems thus far
developed.

Before continuing a discussion of the construction
and functions of a police comulaint system, it would appear
beneficial to establish an outline of the objectives of

such a system.
OBJECTIVES OF POLICE COKPLAINT PROCEDURES

It is somewhat of an over-simplification to state that
the objectives of a police complaint system are the improvement
of services, better mutual understanding, improvement of
internal investigation procedures, development of improved
policies and procedures, etc., etc., etc. All of these
considerably subjective goals must necessarily be considered
in terms of how they are to be achieved, and specifically,
not in terms of glowing generalities.

A complaint program must be directed at the causative
factors of disharmony if it is to be effective in bringing
about better relationships and communications with the public.

This hypothesis has been set forth in other portions of the

broad field of police community relations and appears equally

1 Labor and Industrial Relations Center, On,Cit. pp.53-SS.

108

pertinent in the field of complaint procedures.l Emphasis
should be placed on was? is wrong, not «so is wrong, and
efforts directed at rectifying the offending what.

Within this basic frame of reference we may then
consider the basic objectives of a police complaint procedure
as being the following:

1. To provide for an orderly means of registering

complaints. Such means should be simple and lend themselves

 

to ready availability to the public. Procedures requiring
initiation in writing, at specific centrally located points
(often quite distant from the place where the action complained
of took place) requiring considerable travel and loss of time
to the complainant, should be limited, if not eliminated
completely. Procedures must be well known to the general
public if they are to be effective in achieving breader goals.
2. Administrative channels of processing should

be simple. Referral of complaints should be to the lowest

 

authority capable of resolving the complaint satisfactorily.
Subsequent channels for review and appeal action should
parallel established administrative and command channels.
There should be no need for the complainant to follow each
step in the process via personal interviews, written state-
ments, and quasi-judicial proceedings.

1 Paul B. Weston, Op.Cit.p.127.

109

3. Definite methods for administration of
complaints are necessary. The handling of each separate
complaint on an ad hoc basis can generate confusion and
dissatisfaction on the part of both the police and the public.
As in the case of the means for registering complaints, such
methods should be well known to the public.

A. Definite means for insuring compliance with
the laws and proper adjudication should be provided. The
laws are the basis for police action, and, where violation
of law is alleged in a complaint, eg assault, unlawful
arrest or detention, such violations should be handled by
means other than a grievance procedure. Preferably such
actions should result in referral to the courts for
subsequent legal proceedings commensurate with the charge.

5. Shouldgprovide for means of publication of
results of complaints processed. Public airing of problems
brought to light by a complaint system should serve to
engender a greater degree of understanding and confidence
by the public in their police department.

6. The procedure should_provide for centralized

record maintenance. The dev10pment of a central group of

 

records pertaining to the number of complaints by type can
provide valuable information for use in deveIOping policy,

training requirements, and general assessment of the status

110
of the police department. It also provides control over
the diSposition of complaints made by various levels of
authority within the department.

7. Specific_procedures for gppeals of decisions
to an impartial arbitrator should be provided. There will
no doubt be instances where agreement on disposition of
complaints is lacking and some point of final decision
is required. Soecific designation of an incividual or
agency to whom such apoeals will be referred should serve

to reduce disagreement on the question of appeal.
DEFINITIONS OF COEELAINTS AGA NST POLICE

The gamut of types of complaints against police is
virtually infinite and may range from a complaint regarding
the officers parked in agmtrol car conversing while they
should perhaps be elsewhere, to the allegations of assault
(police brutality) which appear to have become quite in vogu .

For our purposes here we need discuss only two types
of complaints, ie those which allege a criminal act by
police, and, those which charge malfeasance or abuse of
authority, eg harassment, ethnic slurs, etc.

Where an allegation of criminal action is made, it
would appear that a complaint proceeding would take on the
nature of a preliminary investigation to determine whether
there is probable cause for arrest and subsequent action

through the courts. Such preliminary proceedings should

lll

normally be handled via an investigation by the appropriate
division or bureau of the police deaartmcnt in much the
same manner as any other criminal complaint. Criminal
allegations have no place in a complaint procedure which
is basically an administrative function, and, serve only
to complicate the system while maintaining the adjudicatory
aspects already prevalent in too many comfiaint systems.
The judicial systems provides for compliance with statutes
and laws of the community (which the police are not above,
or should not be) and also provides penalties for perjured
testimony and false accusations which should provide an
effective deterrent to false charges and "nuisance"
complaints.

The non-criminal allegations or Complaints are the
type which should remain the rightful province of a
complaint system. The determination of whether or not
the complaint should fall into the criminal or non—
criminal category may often be difficult and should give
preference to the non-criminal categorization until the

information adduced shows otherwise.
A TdNTATIVE SYSTAM

"Grievance procedures should be as uncomplicated as
possible with a minimum of formality consistent with
providing a clearly outlined procedure.“1

1 International Labour Conference, Oo.Cit. p.17.

 

 

 

Ill" I‘lll1l1‘lril

112

fhe labor and management relations discussed in an
earlier Chapter provide simple and relatively clear cut
procedures with a minimum of involvement by the aggrieved
employee. The complaint is made and forwarded, and, determination
of further action is made within the organization, usually
without further recourse to the employee, except as to
notification of final diSposition of the complaint.

Records are maintained of the complaint and its
disposition by both labor and management for their respective
utilization. Civil service procedures function similarly
in this respect.

A simple, centrally located and controlled, supervision
oriented method of complaints receipt would seem to meet
police needs for control, as well as combining several of
the features of the complaint systems reviewed previously.
ihomas Rushworth cites a method of short-hand typists
taking details of crime by telephone or radio from police
officers in the field as being a method of keeping officers
in the field rather than writing reports.l A similar
arrangement utilizing tape recordings of conversations
with complainants by a Specially trained staff of police
officers, via telephone, could serve to provide a record
of a complaint with necessary information to initiate an
investigation. The funneling of all complaints through

1 Thomas Rushworth, "Bradford C.I.D. - Reorganization"
in The Police Review No. 2927, London, February ll, 19h9.

 

113

such a telephone-tape recorder system could serve to
provide information for a central file of complaints,
elicit necessary information from com_lainants for use
in initial investigations, and, by using a telephone
call back or tracer system, confirm identification of
the complainant.

Information relative to the complaint could then be
extracted by the receiving officer for distribution to the
appropriate departmental agencies. Administrative complaints
could in many cases be comyleted without further referral
to the complainant other than notifications of diaposition.
Preliminary investigations of criminal complaints could be
made prior to obtaining written statements from the complain-
ant. Copies of the tape recording could be furnished to the
investigators, thereby retaining the original tone of the
complaint which is often lost in reducing the verbage to
writing.

Consistent with the wide support and emphasis on
obtaining action at the lowest level of authority, it
would appear that referral of the complaint to the precinct
commander of a municipal force, or barracks commander of
a state police force would be appropriate. Commanders at
these levels usually have adequate personnel with which
to conduct investigations of the type envisioned. Depart-

mental policies might vary as to the level of command

1m

which should constitute the first step in the complaint
investigation, dependent on the structure and authority
of the various levels of the department. The level of
investigation should be that of the closest supervisorial
authority over the complaint action, who has adequate
personnel for investigation, and authority to take corrective
action or recommend corrective action with a reasonable
degree of reliability.
Additional review of the correciive action or
recommendation by the next higher level of supervision
would provide a built-in ap eal procedure, and, could be
completed without further reference to the complainant
and prior to his notification of disposition of the comolaint.
From the forgoing discussion we can adduce the following

functions of the Complaint Bureau, the staff designated to
receive complaints:

1. Provide personnel and equipment for receiving
complaints from the public, —

2. Insure that adequate information is obtained
in the oral complaint to permit investigation,

3. Record information regarding the complaint
on vcice tape recordings of initial complaint,

h. Reduce information received in 2 and 3 to

written forms for use within the department,

115

5. Make cooies of tape recordings of complaints
for use by investigators, thereby insuring retention of
record COpy at the complaint bureau,

6. Make an initial determination of which agency
or bureau of the department the complaint will be referred
to for investigation,

7. Receive and record completed investigations
of Complaints and make final determination as to approval
of recommended actions cited in the investigation (except
in those cases where higher authority retains final approval
authority),

8. Provide cooies of completed investigations
and aporovals to designated agencies of the department,

9. Conduct or direct additional investigations
in cases not approved,

10. Represent the department in cases appealed
to an impartial arbitrator, and,

11. Coordinate departmental actions and represent-
ation in cases referred to criminal proceedings.

From the forgoing functions we can establish a basis
for general personnel requirements and staffing of the
Complaint Bureau. The head of the bureau must be an officer
of command rank, thereby retaining a position from which he
can justifiably be eXpected to pass on the actions of

commanders designated to conduct and review investigations

116

of complaints referred by his bureau. he must have
available to him qualified personnel to receive complaints
over a twenty-four hour day on a full time basis. Depart—
ment staffing guides may vary in this aspect but a minimum
of five such personnel should be assigned. Clerical
personnel for filing, reproduction of records and tapes,
compilation of statistical data, and similar functions
may be necessary although in small departments the personnel
receiving complaints may perform these functions as well.

Provisions for adcitional investigative functions
may vary depending on the over-all structure of the cepartment.
Those departments which have an internal investigation unit
should utilize these personnel in conducting additional
investigation of COMplaints, and, in exceptional cases may
conduct the initial investigation. Legal representations
and Opinions should also be available to the complaint
bureau, and, should normally come from the departments
legal bureau on an as needed basis.

Investigative efforts within the various bureaus or
agencies of the police department should be utilized on
a "business as usual” basis and normally conducted, making
full use of the facilities and personnel available. The
added requirement of approval and possible adcitional
investigation by the complaint bureau should provide the

necessary impetus to insure complete resorting of the facts.

117

The status of the Complaint Bureau must necessarily
be that of an arm of the chief or commissioner, with his
full support and authority reinforcing the actions of the
bureau. The Chief of the Complaint Bureau should serve as
a member of the Special staff of the chief (commissioner).
The question of an impartial arbitrator of appeals
from decisions by the police department is one which must
be settled on a local basis. It is possible that in the
foreseeable future some cities and states in the United
States may establish an ombudsman. Pne designation of
selected personnel by the mayor or city council to serve
as an arbitrator or impartial finder of fact would seem
to constitute an appropriate solution. The structure of
such an office would im ose requirements for clerical
assistance, authority for investigative functions, and,
investigative assistance from governmental agenCies of the
jurisdiction. The qualifications of the arbitrator should
include experience in the field of administration of justice,
education in the social sciences or related areas, and, in
general parallel those cited in the chapter relating to the
ombudsman. The functions of the office should parallel those
of the ombudsman closely, although in an obviously more limited

field. The practice of labor and management of selecting

persons from local industry, bar associations, educational

118

institutions, and similar sources could be applied to

selection of the arbitrator for police complaints as well.
A CChFARISCN‘ r‘ihuublOflsRlbflCS

A comparison of the characteristics and procedures
of the systems reviewed in the preceding chapters will
serve to introduce a Specific complaint procedure for
police which will incorporate the salient features of
these systems. A step by step analysis utilizing the
chart on page 99 of this text as a guice follows:

Written procedures. Complaints will be initiated

 

orally (by telephone) with tape recording of the conversation.
Extracts of the conversation are prepared by personnel of

the Complaint Bureau for use in preliminaries. written
statements by the complainant may follow if necessary

to the completion of a particular investigation. These would
be obtained by the investigating officer in a routire manner.

Kulti-level process. The processes initiated by the

 

Complaint Bureau would parallel in many ways those of the
Inspector General. The central agency receives the complaint
and routes it to an appropriate level of command for
investigation, evaluation, review and reply. Command

1
\

.e additional

CL

echelons reviewing the actions taken provi

levels of review. ihe added feature of availability of an

arbitrator outside the department provides an adtitional

119

level of appeals action. The function of the Complaint
Bureau (similarly to the Cmbudsman and InSpector General)
should provide sufficient motivation to accuracy and
objectivity in its functions. Ihe effectiveness of the
multi-level procedure thus envisioned is reasonably well
assured by a need for self-justification as well as any
external controls which may be imposed.

Settlement at lowest level should normally result

 

from referral of the complaint to the approoriate command
level of the department. Command structures have been
designated rather than desk officers, primarily because

of the need for authority to take action, and, since most
departmental procedures require notification of the commander
in cases of complaints as a matter of course. The commander
may in turn designate members of his command to perform

the investigation on which he will base his actions or
recommendations.

Right to appeal is inherent in the system since it

 

requires review by higher echelons of command, and, if the
comulainant is not willing to accept the decision rendered
by the first levels of command, additional levels of
command are available for appeal through the Complaint

bureau. The bureau itself consitutes a point of further

120

appeal and the availability of an arbitrator completes the
apoeals channels of the system.

Written records of the proceedings will consist of
standard reports of investigation with supocrting statements,
cooies of extracts of the complaint itself, a cosy of the
tape recorded complaint, and, reports of action taken,
recommendations and concurrences by commanders in the chain
of review. Such records would be maintained by the Complaint
Bureau and utilized in assessing needs for policy changes,
revisions of regulations, and, provide records for personnel
actions and such other statistical purzoses as the deoartment
might envision.

Time limits. Time limits were not defined in the

 

earlier discussion of the Complaint Bureau, and, such time
limits as might be imposed would depend on the structure
and extent of departmental onerations, the nature of the
complaint, and a myriad of other suojective considerations.
Referral to the Commander by the Complaint oureau should in
any case take place within twenty-four hours, and advance
oral notification could be completed prior to that. A five
day period for investigation of complaints does not seem
unreasonable, and a lesser period of time may be feasible
in certain jurisdictions. Briefly, time limits will vary

with departmental structures and policies but should be

defined in the procedural regulations pertainin to the

complaint system of the department. Emphasis should be on
notification to the complainant of delays and reasons

therefore.

Right to litigate. By providing for an immediate

 

separation of criminal from non-criminal complaints

by the Complaint Bureau, the need for litigation of a
complaint processed within the complaint system should be
minimal. An outright prohibition against litigation would
serve little practica purhose, and, would probably
encounter considerable criticism in the courts and from
the public. The results of a well handled complaint
investigation should provide sufficient data to meet any
court action initiated by a complainant. Litigation in the
systems examined heretofore has been relatively infrequent,
and, there is no reason to believe that police complaints
systems should reflect any great changes on this eXperience.

Level for initiating_procooures. The tentative

 

proposals made here provide for initiation of the processes
at a central authority. This approach is consistent with
the operations of the inSpector general and is well suited
to the need for central controls in the authoritarian

structure of a police department. “Off the record"

122

"pigeon-

settlement of complaints and the tendency to
hole”complaints at lower levels are also avoided by this
technique.

Rigft to counsel is not listed on the chart of

 

comparisons cited but is worthy of some consideration
here. The tentative procedures thus far outlined envision
the role of counsel being played by the Complaint Bureau
and the chief of police in their efforts to improve
communications and relations with ihe public in general.
The availabili'y of an impartial arbitrator or umpire
for further appeal should provide additional motivation
in this role-playing function.

The procedures which have been evolved from these
analyses and discussions are presented in a chart form
on the following page and constitute the conclusions of
this thesis, a model police complaint system. Subsequent
discussion will review the advantages and disadvantages
of such a system. The mooel described will require
mooification in its apolication to a particular department
and extensive incorporation of departmental policies as
to authority to take action, levels of command, and,
internal structure.

The major advantage of the model outlined lies in its

simplicity and adaptability to departments of various sizes

A C11L iotlo; c\ lilo ; i Dani
step one tril presentation of con laint to CflmplEiflt bureau

“+ .‘ 1,5,. ‘ 7 y' _‘_?-“"'7 l_' ,11 ‘ ' _ _ _, , A ’. '. _. . 3 ‘
o 3;?) Tire 11 t. 1J1 t;. 11 t1" Ckci’ 1:1;11c E,L1yr1 L1 .2, ‘LC) Ililnifl? cm; 'tr1e
Chm-u l 1 :1“

L C:‘1—-C"‘l‘.1ln"l criminal
Continue: in Cdfl“l?lnt no crril to int-Tn l investi—
iroco s to stop three zation unit subsequent
court action i a_*;r0priate

 

"‘1"
n
T

.L

Step Three Referral to unit Cntz1nzzx Tor inve ti: tion and action.
Contacts conplainant rev rein” action t Len or rrorOsed
and :etcrnflnrs whether Cflfltlgint action is satisfa0tory
to the Conglainant.

ConTlafnsnt not s tisfi d satisfied
Infcr s cc nlijnisit of 1x;:t step Chi LJhe stztcnent of
of revie= 1n3 forwards for further acccult ice oi disyosi-
act:Lon in 1rocrss tion an: i‘or aria

 

 

' ‘

Step rour % Review tv next command surervisor. NOYL rie‘ to conplsint
bureau for statistic l xnd recori purposes if satisfaction
of cedrlainant achieved at step tnree. if not, further
investigation and attenrt to wchi vs a 1ee.ent on co uplaint
tith comylainant c:se~ on additional vita adduced.

Step Five soviet of :2cti -ns 1nd st tus of comylaint Ly complaint
bureau. rurthi r an"tl" tion an‘ evxluation of complaint,
mith rene.ei cont-ct nith com lainant in attempt to reach
Settlcncnt.

Step Six heferral to an arbitrator. information as to procedures
related by con laint bureau to can lainant. Local
proce;l 2res cstntli 5193 i r tl:is func ion sill vary.

Final point of a1~e l or co17l int.

adninis+ rttive Iroce on closin" of cowzlaint file h-lll v rv with
orqanization of dew rtnont. Tnclu e recozd mainten nee, statistical
titulit on, ro< rca 13 to TOliCT and Ieuilatory intliC~ti0ns, analysis
of Causts of conrl1int and actions to be recommenoed to precluje

recurrence. 1 Jblicat on o reaults via news media to he included.
Administrative PrOCBfMires may be initiated after step five or six

J—‘

as JP ropriate to fire case unier consideration.

* Reviews ‘7 successive ccnnan?s nav to desiridlc ierondins on
departmental structure sni functions. These mav be injected at this
level of the procceiinrs, however, smould be kept at a minimum.

1211

and structures. minor innovations in the personnel
staffing of the Complaint bureau pro csed lend this
concept practical apolicetions in small departments while
combinations with the functions of internal investigation
units or lerger departmentsis also practical and compara-
tively simple. The procedures envisioned are those
inherent in the day to day operations of a department, with
perhaps added emphasis on courteous treatment of complainants,
interviews at the complainants convenience where at all
possible, and, maximum use of oral proceedings utilizing
tepe recordings to provide accurate records of the proceedings.

Compliance with the procedures outlined can be easily
controlled by the Operations of the complaint bureau in
combination with adequate publicity. Complaints made to
local precinct stations in person or by telephone can be
easily channeled into the complaint system by telephone.

The system provides for settlement at lower levels
of command while providing for a system of reviews, whether
or not the complainant states his satisfaction with the
actions taken by the commander. A point of central dantrol
is provided by the complaint bureau which may also serve
as a "istributor of selected data for use by other agencies
of the department. Rho sveila‘ilify of appeal outside the
police provides an added media for building public confidence

while the primarily police complaint system provides for the

125

acknowledgment of the "peculiarities" of police operations
and ensures understanding of the police problems often
inherent in such complaints. In brief it can be said to be
a compromise between a civilian review board and a police
complaint system which excludes any civilian participation.

Elimination of criminal complaints from the system
should eliminate, or at least reduce the tendency to

”whitewash” wnich often follow criminal

accusations of
complaints against police where the police are not prosecuted
for lack of evidence, or are found not guilty of the charges
without resort to legal proceedings.

Additional forms and oublications required to put
such a procedure into Operation need consist only of a
"complaint sheet” onto which essentials of the telephone
complaint are transcribed by the members of the complaint
bureau on receipt, anc whi h provides space for routing
information, dates of receipt and dispatch, and, signatures
of commanders and reviewers in the system. The cover sheet
can further serve to identify the nature of correspondence
and/or investigation attached on completion of each set.
Color coding and the like may be helpful but not essential.

Numerous departmental forms already in existence may be

converted to this use with minor modificatiuns.

126

lbs tape recordings of conversations with the complainant
and the officers involved in a complaint provide a complete
and less likely to be misinterpreted presentation of the
complaint and the facts and circumstances surrounding it
than would the normally encountered written procedures alone.
Notification of the complainant and others interviewed that
the conversation is being tape recorded and their acknowledg-
ment of such notification should serVe to preclude legal
difficulties. The extent to which tape recordings alone
can be used to initiate and comalete the ranlution of a
complaint depend only on the training and ability of complaint
bureau personnel and departmental policies evolved to cover
such procedures.

Critics of this system may avow that it maKes it ”too
easy to comilain”, and in a sense this is true, however,
if the purpose of the police comglaint system is to improve
communications with the public, such a criticism would not
appear to be valid. rerhaps the greatest problem inherent
in this system is the selection of the arbitrator. To a
large degree the effectiVeness of the system will depend
on public confidence in the arbitrator selected. The ability
of Rho arbitrator to ”get things done" will similarly have
great effect on his overall effectiveness and acceptance.

His authority to investigate and make further recommendations

127

pertinent to police and gover mental procedures should be
considerably broad to permit complete eXploitation of his
somewhat unique position. ihe discussion of the ombudsman
contained in texts cited in this study gives many implications
for the stature and ca acity of such an office.

In the final analysis, whether a police complaint
system is effective depends on the attitudes of the personnel
involved in its administration. {he desire to arrive at the
truth, no matter who is hurt, and straightforward emphasis
on self-improvement together with a swirit of public service
can make even a mediocre system workable in terns of public
relations and ultimate benefit to the department. Conversely,
a defensive reaction to criticism coupled with a desire for
self-justification, can make a shambles of even the most
effective techniques. fhe key to these attitudes lies in
the leadership and administration, not only of the police,
but also of local government.

”inspector

The system preposed can also serve as an
general” for complaints within the department made by its
members. Normal departmental procedures usually call for
presentation of grievances by members to their immediate
supervisors. {here areoccasions when it is not practical

for the member to follow these procedures, eg in a complaint

against the supervisor. The availability of the procedures

described to departmental members could provide a system
wherein grievances may be presented to an agency which has
access to all levels of the departmental structure. Where

the complaint bureau and internal investigation units are
integrated or “losely related, the system would be eSpecially
well suited to this function.

Again, it must be reiterated that the attitudes of the
command echelons of the oepartment must be oriented toward
improvement in order to make such a system effective. The
system itself provides only a methodology which is dependent
on human factors for efficiency and effectiveness. The
numerous checks on actions by members in the investigative
processes should serve to decrease the effects of individual
prejudice and bias, but, by no means present a oanacea. The
relationships between the police and their community are
sufficiently comolex and variable to preclude an one ideal
method providing an unswerving ;ath to universal solutions

of problems within that relationship.
THE NehD FOR FURTHdH RESEARCH

The model presented in this study is simply that - a
model. It has been derived from a study of unrelated (to
the oolice) grievance studies via logical deductions and

inference. This study represents only a beginning in the

129

process of completing a workable, tested and reliable

police complaint system. In brief, it presents a logically
develOped hypothesis for further testing. The tape recording
technique cited, selection and training of complaint bureau
personnel, develoyment of supervisorial policy pertaining to
the Operations of the com laint bureau, and, analysis of
statistiral data to be develOped and maintained by the bureau,
are only a few of the additional studies needed prior to

field testing of the system.

‘BJBLlLVfltitEY

A

Case, Ferry L. ersenrel lolicy in w lurlic A“CHCY - The T.V.A.
experience. Lew lork: Harper sn‘ frothcrc,’l955.

 

 

 

 

Cehn, frances T. Federal Fmrlovces in war and Peace. dashington
D.C.: [he Irecxinfs Institut on, I§E9.

 

‘ ‘

Coleman, James C. Arnorn l Ps"cbolosv and Hodern Life. Chicsdo:
Scott Boresxan aLE'CcnraLy, IFEQ.

 

Crane, Iertrsn R. and Hoffman, fic~er Q. successf l Haniling of
Labor Wrievsnces. Lew lcrk: Central book CO., Inc., 1955.

 

 

Gellhorn, Walter. The Ombudsman and Others. Cambridge, Es33.:
Harvard UniVerSitv

 

   

.5 €155,

Gernsnn, A. C. Felice Personnel Mdnswenent. stringfield, 111.:
Charles C. Tlonas Fuflisninq Co.,’lybj

 

 

 

Hart Eileen F. Collective Eirssinins in the Eedcrgl Civil service.
: W l.
' ' r : Harp"r erVlrothrrs, l9ol.

Kramer, Leo. Labor's lqrqdox. Ker Vork: John ailey & Sons, 1962.

 

Penman, Ailliam H. Cases fer Airinistrqtive Action. Eng ewood
Cliffs, Sew Jersey: Prentice Hallglnc., 1950}

 

LcFaifien, R. C. Labor manrenrnt relst‘ons in the Illin is state
service. Urbans, Illindis,_l95h.

 

 

kosher Jillism E. and hinfislev J. Donald. lublic Personnel Airinr
3 w _ J
istriticn. New :ork: Harper fl eros., 1916
Rowqt, Donild C. The Ombudednn. London: Unwin Lrothers Limited,

1965.

Smith, Gecrre A. Jr. and Christensen, C. holand. FOliCY Formulation
and Administration. homewoo , Illinois: Richerdlu. IrWin inc.,

1932.

 

 

Stone, Morris. Labor Grievances and decisions. New lork: Harver
and how, 1965.

 

uestcn, Paul B. dun rvisicn in the Aininistrat on of lolice, Courts,

Corrections. drringfield, lllineis: Charles C Th0hhS rublisn—
ing 00., 1965.

 

 

 

 

 

131

B. Ija;o11c;13

Cornell, J. D. "Collective larsiiniir by lublic employee Grours"
107 Universitv o: kenns*lvnnis Law nevien h3:107, 1956.

.5

 

 

 

Rock, $11. "1r CLLCll L1 or relatinns in the rublic oervice,"
lo lutlic Per sonnel nevipw 71, 1957.

 

mushrorth, Thomas. "Fred ord 0.1.). - neor"nnization," The relics
neview To. 2927, londcn, Eebruarv 11, l9h9.

dhanlev, John F. "Objectives 0” the Iolice Intellircnce Unit,”
The lolice C inf 31:10, L97, l96h.

 

Smith, n. Dein. "Inspection and Control," The lolice Chief 33:10,
J 1-11:", 13761.1 .

(J‘itOTiTl). ‘Wniions CITE! HD101Rd1 Lirlxi'ecs," ousiness .nxac

b. e V 1‘1..‘ dip it, 1.3:LI,J.‘\.!.'_1_LJ-..5

Iittn'tf-‘jl: 131 ”1155 gq-lo JJ‘ 'Y ' ”T Jilin-b ’3".- .AT' ”‘7. W 'I‘I —-'—‘4 Chill) D.C.) Li. J.
Government lrintinr service, .Jul‘r 1m, 19 )0.

f‘Lyv-Hl 2r

 

Federal }€rstnnel mdnfl*1. Ans inrtwn U. C. be eI 1 Illntln ocrv-
. , )
ice, 1950.

 

firiGVc he ProceIure it U ion A'chwsnts, 19§o_a1. U. 5- Depirtment

V —r v v 1 _ Y - 1 1 -
I Li I , .urca' oL L b0? otitistics, hontnlv LubOl LGVLC

I L,

Juljr l 51.

icic‘rIir‘I‘rn obit? f‘.¥iovr~rnIr1I_>nt Civil dr-Irvice 1969 111111181 Etc-sort OI the
Ic-r fitment of Civil Jerfice, at Um of IIiici—ir'em, 19"")

.11 a.

scoo~niqed r rlovoo (IT r nization Payroll deduction. Michi,: en Jen :rt—

.1 a.

ment of CIVII’oerJi Fe, state of Lieni“;.. UctoLer 29, 1966.
Revision of btste Vriov~nce lrocedures. Michifian department of Civil
' sEEVIee, hurlo ee re1 t _ons Burs u, September 25, 19h0.

' 'm',‘ ”“1 s .' I ”’W'L] ,1 u ': 1.7.: ; '1“ '1_f|.\
D o F 541“.) Le) U," DU} .qu1 1 171.11), DU: 1' Id“ ilithL), 131V 0

Auericqn Bar Association. beCInfi nerort oI the Ccnnittee on L bor

‘ . - n ‘1 T *7 "' T ‘, ""2 _ '_“'""'
nolotions o_ governs nt 31.10yee3. Lune L7, 1995.

 

 

Civil hi hts C0131; ion.

CrJLIIKJWLis...1vigx1I ' Co'Initiw o ‘to ' the 1' .o
- no it” iroor Relations. august,

moIOIt on C, i ornii: folico If

I 9 (- -‘5 0

Civil Cervice nfsevhlv Committee on bnnlo’ee nolttions in the Iuhlic
OFTViCQ. smr10"ee deletions in 1he Jublic Q€IV1CO.UfliCd”O,
! __ ....— .1.
l9u2.

 

 

  

 

 

Civil Cervice Aw cnklv lersornel 1erort. (ctive liocedures Ior
the h n lin; o; in loyee brievmnces. Cnicig“ ll In 13 on Ited)

 

 

Civil service ssgegblv Connittoe on llacemoit in the lutlic Cervice
and the Cosmittee on lrobution in the *ublic service. terorts
.- I - 1 A- . . . . f——-—-——-—-—'
or t”? 99 ‘litpOS - rlICelefit and lroowtion 1n the lubllc oer-
l (// ';\ ' ' -"— _ -——_ ———a———— _

<40.

vice.

 

Duke University Law School. Isidore hatz. ;ini.1in" disputes
Throuch Adjuutnrnt o; Grievances in Law “nd COKLEM“OTCFy
lroLI ms Cbnfercnce, Jur- nozi th C rolins: Duke UniverIity

}re'S a, l9).J?

    

 

11K]. ,

lntern2tf.onnl Lebour Conjerence. C:Vninztion of Irievz no es and
Co run Cstions within the Un'ertuhine. fichort vll VCI 1:7,

Fi”"eth oession. Geneva,*o.1HtI I 1116: La Tribune ce Ceneve,

 

Labor ani industr111.fie1;tions Center, Lichigin state University.
The Criev nee lrocOss. £10cee in s of a ConIerence march 23-2h,
1936, he11ozq UUHLCT, Cic igrn state University.

 

Societ‘r for the Adencemcnt o- ’"n1"e¢ent. i Glossary CI for onnel

n1nijonrnt sni industrial {:1 tions 10:13. me” lorK, 1959.
E UNIUELLJLIJ 13}_ng ACJ CChfnind

AIFDQWTDC bet eon Conertl H'tors Cor oration gnI the UIH—f“L—C10.
Lctobor B, 1965'eI Lective 10 lovcxce;,—19 1. ZLitno: Iuphed

COpy oi' labor nixINeicnt contract.)

The Grievonce Lrocedure. (ljnoutli =hei, unnotec, nineoprsphed
Idrift oI'prorosils Ior grievance roce? Ires in the stite of
hichisen. 1rorosed for lHCOTLOTJthn into the 1966 Innusl

deport of the Cepsrtment 01 Civil service, state 01 Laicnig an.)

 

...

v__,.

 

4 -._.1~ve

F] u

"I7'11LL‘L'S'LLLLLLLLT